Legal Opinion

Vice v. Thacker

California Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1947No. L. A. 19965PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.

Defendant Harry Kurofsky appeals from a judgment for plaintiff decreeing the return of certain personal property or its value, together with damages for the loss of its use, in accordance with the theory of plaintiff’s action based on the rescission of the sale of said property because of fraud. Plaintiff did not prevail against defendant W. N. Thacker and has not appealed from that portion of the judgment in the latter’s favor. Defendant Kurofsky premises his appeal solely upon the claim that the relief granted to plaintiff conforms neither with the evidence nor with the findings and rulings…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Klein Norton Co. v. CohenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  2. Kent v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Marsh v. Van Allen MarshCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  4. Kane v. MendenhallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  5. McNutt v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Runyan v. Pacific Air Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Lobdell v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  3. Walsh v. Hooker & FayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. McConnell v. CowanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Loughlin v. Idora Realty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968

7 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