Legal Opinion

Van Buskirk v. McClenahan

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 19, 1958No. Civ. 17760PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ST. CLAIR, J. pro tem. *

Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion for a nonsuit. In granting the motion, the trial court said: “It is the opinion of the Court that there was no diligence shown in this case in the sale of this house. The plaintiffs being in the building business and knowing the market value, and, in fact, the market rising rather than dropping, the Court feels that the defendants in this case didn’t have much to say as to the sale of this property.”

On September 20, 1948, plaintiff as “Seller”, defendant as “Purchaser” signed a document entitled “Deposit…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Royer v. CarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Berger v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Westwater v. Grace ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Wulfjen v. DoltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Southall v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co.California Court of Appeal · 1952

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Aboud v. AdamsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Branche v. HetzelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. Estate of CallahanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Finley v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Barton v. White Oak Realty, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1969

4 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