Legal Opinion
Donley v. Van Horn
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 28, 1920No. Civ. No. 3213PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.
Plaintiff, to whom had been issued a patent to the land in controversy, sued for recovery of the premises and to quiet title. The lower court adjudged plaintiff to be the owner and entitled to possession. From this judgment defendant appeals.
The land, which is situated in Imperial County, has been in the exclusive occupancy of defendant ever since some time prior to December 26, 1911, on which, date he filed in the proper office, viz., the local land office at Los Angeles, his application to make entry under the desert land law. The land is a part of a large tract that, on April 2, 1909, was…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Doolan v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Wolsey v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Burfenning v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- King v. McAndrewsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonaldDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 1978
- Capron v. Van HornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Bianchi v. Westfield InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Mandel v. Great Lakes Oil Etc. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Imperial Farming Co. v. Van HornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.