Legal Opinion
Kaye v. Melzer
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 30, 1948No. Civ. 13667PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWard, J.
Plaintiffs sued upon an oral contract, described in their complaint as follows: ‘ ‘ That on or about the 18th day of February, 1946, plaintiffs and defendant entered into an oral agreement, whereby defendant agreed to give plaintiffs a sublease and concession of [a portion of No. 327 10th Street, Richmond, California] . . . for a period of three years from the 1st day of April, 1946, to and including the 30th day of March, 1949, and whereby plaintiffs were to have the sole and exclusive right to conduct a retail shoe business therein, selling shoes, slippers, rubbers and all other types of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Estate of Bristol v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Fackrell v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Paul v. Layne & Bowler Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Le Blond v. WolfeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Monarco v. Lo GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- McCulloch v. LiguoriCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Pruitt v. FontanaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Space Properties, Inc. v. Tool Research Co.California Court of Appeal · 1962
- Ace Realty Co. v. FriedmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.