Legal Opinion
Razzano v. Kent
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 24, 1947No. Civ. No. 13293PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent for damages in the sum of $2,112 and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
*256The complaint, which was filed on June 25, 1941, alleged that “the plaintiff is and for more than one year last past has been the lessee of and as such in possession of . . certain real property commonly known as Montezuma Plat in Tuolumne County, which land had been leased for the purpose of dredging for gold; that he dredged said land for a year prior to May 1, 1941, at a substantial profit to himself; that…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Joerger v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
- Kafka v. BozioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Hicks v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Bloss v. RahillyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Rivera Colón v. Díaz ArochoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 2005
- Logan v. Southern California Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Byrum v. BrandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Myers v. StephensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Alberts v. American Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.