Halspar, Inc. v. La Barthe
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
On this appeal from a judgment entered ■ pursuant to section 631.8.of the. Code of Civil Procedure, the only question, presented is whether the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien was invalid because, plaintiff failed to give the requisite statutory prelien notice.(Code Civ. Proc., § 119.3) to defendants, the owners of -"■the real property. Plaintiff corporation argues that it is = exieihpt from the statutory notice requirement as an original ■ contractor because defendants had actual knowledge of the " wofif performed.
The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Nolte v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Pacific Sash & Door Co. v. BumillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Wand Corp. v. San Gabriel Valley Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
- Krenwinkel v. Henne.California Court of Appeal · 1919
3Cited by10 opinions
- Frank Pisano & Associates v. TaggartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Scott, Blake & Wynne v. Summit Ridge Estates, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- Truestone, Inc. v. Simi West Industrial Park IICalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Schrader Iron Works, Inc. v. LeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- M. Arthur Gensler, Jr., & Associates, Inc. v. Larry Barrett, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1972
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.