Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Maglica v. Maglica

California Court of Appeals
66 Cal. App. 4th 442 (1998)


Facts

Anthony Maglica (defendant) started a machine shop business in 1955. In 1971, Maglica met Claire Halasz (Halasz) (plaintiff) and they began living together, holding themselves out as husband and wife, and building the business together. In addition, Halasz changed her name to Maglica. In 1974, Maglica incorporated the business and placed all of the business shares under his name. In 1978, Halasz developed a successful flashlight and soon the business was worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In 1992, Halasz learned that Maglica was transferring the stock to Maglica’s children rather than to Halasz and Halasz sued Maglica for breach of contract and quantum meruit. At trial, the judge gave instructions on the measure of recovery for a quantum meruit claim, stating that the reasonable value of Halasz’s services was either the value of the cost to obtain similar services or the value of the benefit to Maglica. The trial judge also gave jury instructions on the issue of the existence of an implied-in-fact contract to share ownership of the business, stating that the fact that Maglica and Halasz lived together and held themselves out to be married should not be considered in the determination. The jury awarded Halasz $84 million. Maglica appealed the award and Halasz cross-appealed the jury instructions regarding the existence of an implied-in-fact contract.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Sills, P.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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.

  2. 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 205,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.