Legal Opinion

Pollock v. Tiano

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 3, 1967No. Civ. 29947PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHINN, J. *

Pollock and wife sued Tiano and wife for specific performance of a contract to sell plaintiffs a city lot. In a second cause of action plaintiffs sought damages in case specific performance could not be had. Defendants answered, alleging that plaintiffs had failed to perform terms of the agreement essential to entitle them to acquire the property and alleging that the agreement was procured by fraud. Defendants also filed a cross-complaint for damages for plaintiffs’ failure to perform the agreement. At the time of trial plaintiffs abandoned their cause of action for specific…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schoenberg v. Romike PropertiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  2. Burrow v. TimmsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Stockwell v. LindemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ruth v. Lytton Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Ban-Co Investment Co. v. LovelessCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1978
  3. Protective Equity Trust 83, Ltd. v. BybeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. Creditco Financial Services, Inc. v. CalvertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  5. Opinion No., Texas Attorney General Reports1978

1 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