Legal Opinion

Holmes v. Warren

California Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1904No. S.F. No. 3096PublishedCited by 28 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order denying his motion for a new trial, and comes up on a bill of exceptions used on the hearing of said motion. The action is for the recovery of a lot or tract of land on the east shore of Lake Merritt, in the city of Oakland. It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant entered into possession of the premises in question under a lease, for the term of two years, and thereafter remained in possession without the consent of the plaintiff after the expiration of the two years’ term, and refused to surrender possession of said premises after…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Henley v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Boyd v. BlankmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  4. Riverside Water Co. v. GageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Ganceart v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Tomales Bay Oyster Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Holmberg v. Hardee TrusteesSupreme Court of Florida · 1925
  3. Chapman v. HicksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  4. Clinton v. Utah Construction Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Dickens v. HestonIdaho Supreme Court · 1933

23 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