Mix v. Tumanjan Development Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• “existence of the attorney-client relationship means that the attorney is not representing the attorney’s own personal interests”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.
  California Court of Appeal· 2009-10-06· cited 182×
• Ramona Unified School District v. Tsiknas
  California Court of Appeal· 2005-12-09· cited 57×
• Carpenter & Zuckerman, LLP v. Cohen
  California Court of Appeal· 2011-05-10· cited 42×
• Young v. Midwest Family Mut. Ins. Co.
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 2008-07-25· cited 32×
• Ellis Law Group, LLP v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Properties, LLC
  California Court of Appeal· 2014-10-03· cited 31×
• N.S. v. D.M.
  California Court of Appeals, 5th District· 2018-03-28· cited 23×
• Witte v. Kaufman
  California Court of Appeal· 2006-08-01· cited 22×
• Rickley v. Goodfriend
  California Court of Appeal· 2012-07-30· cited 15×
• Sands & Associates v. Juknavorian
  California Court of Appeal· 2012-10-10· cited 11×
• McMillan v. Shadow Ridge at Oak Park Homeowner's Assn.
  California Court of Appeal· 2008-08-04· cited 9×
• Frison v. Mathis
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2009-10-01· cited 8×
• Gottesman v. Santana
  S.D. California· 2017-07-06· cited 8×
• Ellis Law Group v. Nevada City Sugar Loaf Prop.
  California Court of Appeal· 2014-10-22
• N.S. v. D.M.
  California Court of Appeal· 2018-03-28
• O&C Creditors Group, LLC v. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC
  California Court of Appeal· 2019-11-25
• O&C Creditors Group v. Stephens & Stephens XII
  California Court of Appeal· 2019-12-17