From our private database of 13,300+ case briefs...
Enea v. Superior Court
Court of Appeal of California
34 Cal.Rptr.3d 513 (2005)
Enea (plaintiff) sued William and Claudia Daniels (defendants), his former partners, for breaching their fiduciary duties by renting the partnership’s sole asset, an office building, to themselves at less than fair market value. The trial court granted the Daniels’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that California law authorized such conduct, that the Daniels had no duty to collect fair market value rent in the absence of a contract requiring them to do so, and that the primary purpose of the partnership was to hold the property for later sale as opposed to collecting market value rent.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Rushing, P.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 140,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.