Legal Opinion

Hale v. Wolfsen

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 22, 1969No. Civ. 25266PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Dorothy L. Hale, doing business as California Real Estate, from a judgment, in favor of her principals, respondents Wolfsen, on their cross-complaint for rescission of a real estate transaction that was not completed.

Appellant contends that: 1) the court erred in concluding that she was a subagent of respondents and had violated her fiduciary duty toward them; 2) the evidence does not support the finding that she made material misrepresentations and induced respondents to enter into the transaction; 3) the court erred in failing to make the special findings of fact she requested; and 4) that…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Lingsch v. SavageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  2. Sullivan v. HelbingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  3. Merrill v. BuckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Bergtholdt v. Porter Bros.California Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Crandall v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Blickman Turkus v. Mf Downtown SunnyvaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Stortroen v. Beneficial Finance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1987
  3. Skopp v. WeaverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Montoya v. McLeodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  5. Ngan Tang Nguyen v. ScottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988

3 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