Legal Opinion
Schomaker v. Osborne
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 11, 1967No. Civ. 11385PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFriedman, J.
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, seek specific performance of an agreement to purchase real estate, contending that they had exercised their option to buy. The trial court held that they had not effectively exercised their option and that the defendant owners were not bound to convey. Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment denying specific performance.
Plaintiffs bought defendants’ bar and restaurant business and leased the real estate on which it was located for five years, commencing January 1,1960. The lease gave the tenant an option to purchase the real estate, which could be exercised during the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- California Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
- City of Los Angeles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Ablett v. ClausonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Cates v. McNeilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Caras v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Eldridge v. BurnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Lawrence v. ShuttCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Riverside Fence Co. v. NovakCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Wachovia Bank v. LIFETIME INDUSTRIES, INC.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Yackey v. Pacifica Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.