Legal Opinion
Birkhofer v. Krumm
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 11, 1938No. Civ. 2133PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAINES, J., pro tem.
This is not the first time that the transactions here involved have been, in some of their aspects, before this court. (See Birkhofer v. Krumm, 4 Cal. App. (2d) 43 [40 Pac. (2d) 553]; Birkhofer v. Krumm, 23 Cal. App. (2d) 269 [72 Pac. (2d) 899]; Birkhofer v. Krumm, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 372 [75 Pac. (2d) 82].)
The earlier phases of the dealings to be considered are recited in the first of the above-mentioned opinions but since in the present appeal they are complicated by other matters it seems advisable for the sake of clarity to state the case de novo.
The amended complaint in…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Green v. BiddleSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Edwards v. KearzeySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Barnitz v. BeverlySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Richmond Mortgage & Loan Corp. v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Knapp v. DohertyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Hatch v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Wade v. Markwell & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
- Olivas v. WeinerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Everts v. MattesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.