Legal Opinion

Schwartz v. Shapiro

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 18, 1964No. Civ. 21442PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMolinari, J.

On this appeal from an interlocutory decree of partition 1 the principal question presented is whether the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence to explain the meaning of a writing which constituted a partial integration of an agreement. Having concluded that the evidence should not have been admitted, we hold that pursuant to the terms of said agreement plaintiff was not entitled to a partition of the property which is the subject of this litigation without first offering to sell her interest to defendants. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment decreeing partition must be…

2Cases cited76 opinions

  1. Barham v. BarhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Gombos v. AsheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. King v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Harrison v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. United Iron Works v. Outer Harbor Dock & Wharf Co.California Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Masterson v. SineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Banner Entertainment, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Alling v. Universal Manufacturing Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  5. Gore v. BerenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1994

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