Legal Opinion
Rosenkranz v. Pellin
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 26, 1950No. Civ. 17516PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VALLÉE, J.
Appeal by defendant O. H. Pellín from a judgment for plaintiffs in an action of unlawful detainer.
On February 28, 1947, the Bieks and Lassars were the owners of three parcels of real property in Los Angeles. The property was unimproved except for a two-story house on one of the lots. On that date they executed a written lease of the property to Rosner for three years. The lease contained a provision by which the lessors reserved the right to cancel the lease at any time during its term, “If all or any portion of this property is sold or if a major building is to be erected on any…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hartman Ranch Co. v. Associated Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Cook v. WinklepleckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Harris v. SeidellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Upton v. TothCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kong v. CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCYCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Kirk Corp. v. First American Title Co.California Court of Appeal · 1990
- Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Richmond Redevelopment AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Commonwealth Memorial, Inc. v. Telophase Society of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.