Gagan v. Gouyd

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “In determining whether transfers occurred with fraudulent intent, we apply the of the evidence standard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Mejia v. Reed
  California Supreme Court· 2003-08-14· cited 243×
• ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp.
  S.D. Texas· 2008-08-30· cited 81×
• Filip v. Bucurenciu
  California Court of Appeal· 2005-05-24· cited 54×
• Annod Corp. v. Hamilton & Samuels
  California Court of Appeal· 2002-08-08· cited 49×
• Ettefagh v. Ettefagh
  California Court of Appeal· 2007-05-22· cited 23×
• Weingarten v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2002-09-20· cited 18×
• Word Investments, Inc. v. Bruinsma (In Re TML, Inc.)
  W.D. Michigan· 2003-03-26· cited 9×
• 623 Partners v. Hunter
  Montana Supreme Court· 2014-10-21· cited 1×
• Mejia v. Reed
  California Court of Appeal· 2002-06-12

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ghirardo v. Antonioli
  California Supreme Court· 1994-11-28· cited 429×
• Bowers v. Bernards
  California Court of Appeal· 1984-01-12· cited 386×
• Nestle v. City of Santa Monica
  California Supreme Court· 1972-04-28· cited 385×
• Lezine v. Security Pacific Financial Services Inc.
  California Supreme Court· 1996-11-21· cited 40×
• Reddy v. Gonzalez
  California Court of Appeal· 1992-07-17· cited 40×
• Whitehouse v. Six Corp.
  California Court of Appeal· 1995-11-21· cited 27×
• Hansford v. Lassar
  California Court of Appeal· 1975-12-01· cited 23×
• In Re Marriage of Bell
  California Court of Appeal· 1996-09-12· cited 10×
• In Re Marriage of Braendle
  California Court of Appeal· 1996-06-24· cited 8×
• In Re Marriage of Ashodian
  California Court of Appeal· 1979-08-13· cited 7×