Legal Opinion
Jue v. Smiser
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 16, 1994No. A062370PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ANDERSON, P. J.
The case at bench requires this court to resolve the following question: May a purchaser of real property who learns of potential material misrepresentations about the property after execution of a purchase agreement—but before consummation of the sale—close escrow and sue for damages? Our answer is, “yes.”
I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. Facts
On April 1, 1992, Kenn and Victoria Smiser (respondents) listed their home at 636 Hillgirt Circle in Oakland for sale with Tabaloff & Company, a realtor (Tabaloff). Tabaloff then began active marketing of the home. On April…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Storage Services v. OosterbaanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Elkind v. WoodwardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Smith v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Roland v. HubenkaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- LL B Sheet 1, LLC v. LoskutoffDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. American Capital Investments, Inc. Stephen J. Murphy Kenneth A. Sorensen Richard D. Otto Adfin Corporation Aci Investors Protective Association, and Approximately 127 Aci (American Capital Investments) Investors, William Shaw v. Richard G. Shaffer, Court Appointed Receiver ForCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Veera v. Banana Republic, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Veera v. Banana Republic, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016