Legal Opinion

Lange v. Aver

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 2, 1966No. Civ. 22352PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMolinari, J.

Plaintiffs, Marvin and Shirle Lange, as holders of a promissory note, brought this action against defendants, Clyde and Dolores Reinke and Florence Aver Hill, as endorsers of this note. Following a trial by the court, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs and against all defendants for the principal and interest due on the note and for attorney’s fees provided for therein. From this judgment Hill appeals, contending that plaintiffs’ recovery on the note is barred by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure sections 580a, 580b, and 580d and that Hill’s liability on the note was…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Roseleaf Corp. v. ChierighinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Brown v. JensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Bargioni v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Hatch v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Heckes v. SappCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bank of Hemet v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
  2. Hunt v. SmythCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  3. Younker v. Reseda ManorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. Roberts v. GravesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Bauman v. CastleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API