Plotnik v. Rosenberg
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, P. J.
This is an action in trespass. Plaintiffs were tenants of the defendant and occupied a certain flat or apartment on Natoma Street, in San Francisco. The husband, an invalid, was away part of the time and the wife and three minor children occupied the flat. During the tenancy, while the rent was seldom paid on the due date, no month passed without payment of the rent in full. For some reason, defendant decided to force the plaintiffs to move,-—whether it was because of higher rents then obtainable or because he considered the plaintiff Rose Plotnik a trouble-maker, is wholly immaterial.
Defendan…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Tynberg v. Isaac & CohenTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Hanna v. SweeneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Saunders v. MullenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
- International & Great Northern Railroad v. Telephone & Telegraph Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1887
- Flannery v. WoodCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Brewer v. Second Baptist ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- Finney v. LockhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Smith v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
- Wetherbee v. United Insurance Co. of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.