Legal Opinion
Hildebrand v. Stonecrest Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 30, 1959No. Civ. 18207PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD (Fred B.), J.
Plaintiffs Neil and Grace Hildebrand own and operate the Broadmoor Pharmacy in a shop ping area called the Broadmoor Shopping Center, at premises leased from defendant Stonecrest Corporation “for the purpose of conducting ... a drug store and for no other purpose,” the lessee agreeing not to use or permit the demised premises to be used for any other purpose. The defendant lessor agreed not to lease or sublet any other space in the area for a drug store, nor permit the sale of “drugs, medicines, or cosmetics” at the supermarket owned and operated by the other defendants,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Medico-Dental Building Co. v. Horton & ConverseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
- City of Los Angeles v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Kulawitz v. Pacific Woodenware & Paper Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Wells v. WellsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Schnabel v. LuiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Deaile v. General Telephone Co. of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Mark-It Place Foods, Inc. v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
- Epstein v. FrankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Walton v. City of Red BluffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.