Schwartz v. Eliades

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the challenged agreement was not champertous because the plaintiff had an interest in the suit
• holding taxi cab companies still had equitable interest in seeing their company name cleared in defamation suit even though they assigned financial interests in the litigation to another
• \This court will not consider an issue if no relevant authority is presented on appeal.\
• agreement between two cab company owners to share litigation expenses and any proceeds in defamation suit, where other owners assigned their interest in the suit to the two, was not champertous because neither owner was a stranger to the lawsuit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).