Legal Opinion

Lantz v. Val

California Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1926No. Docket No. L.A. 9146PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

Respondent Victorine Vai has moved to dismiss the appeals noticed by appellant. As plaintiff in the court below, the appellant brought an action to quiet title to real property. Certain of the defendants, including the respondent Victorine Vai, answering, traversed the allegations of the complaint, and Victorine Vai, by way of cross-complaint, sought to quiet her title to the same land, but under a different description, as against the claims of the plaintiff. The trial court found that both the plaintiff and the defendant Victorine Vai had failed to establish title, or right of possession,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Clary v. ClaryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Cameron v. Arcata & Mad River RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Mantel v. MantelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Rath v. VaughanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hatfield v. Levy BrothersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. United States v. Barry Dean Michael, A/K/A Mike Thompson, A/K/A Mike Johnson, DefendantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
  3. Neff v. ErnstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Matera v. McLeodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  5. Bulmash v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979

6 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