Legal Opinion

Kopf v. Milam

California Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1963No. S.F. 21503PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTraynor, J.

In this action for a real estate commission, cross-complainant, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, appeals from a judgment for cross-defendants, hereinafter referred to as defendants. The appeal on the clerk’s transcript and certain exhibits is treated as an appeal on the judgment roll (White v. Jones, 136 Cal.App.2d 567, 569 [288 P.2d 913]), and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is therefore not open to question.

Plaintiff sought to recover his commission on the ground that he had secured a purchaser after defendants listed their property with him doing business as…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Estate of RuleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. McCluskey v. WareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. White v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Edwards v. BillowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Krueger v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  2. Drake v. HosleyAlaska Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Allen v. TotenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  4. R. J. Kuhl Corp. v. SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  5. Crummer v. ZalkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

9 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