Legal Opinion
Janofsky v. Garland
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 28, 1941No. Civ. 12514PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries which they suffered when they were struck by plaster falling from a ceiling in their bedroom. The trial court sustained a demurrer to their third amended complaint without leave to amend and they have appealed from the judgment of dismissal.
It appears from the allegations of the complaint that plaintiffs on February 1, 1936, rented from defendant a part of a four-family flat building located at 946 North Western Avenue in Los Angeles at an agreed rental to be paid monthly. The agreement was oral and for an indefinite period.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Marks v. Nambil Realty Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Kirshenbaum v. General Outdoor Advertising Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Callahan v. LoughranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Wynne v. HaightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Kolburn v. P. J. Walker Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp.California Supreme Court · 1952
- Wagner v. KeplerIllinois Supreme Court · 1951
- Bartlett v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- Black v. PartridgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Glenn R. Sewell Sheet Metal, Inc. v. LoverdeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.