Legal Opinion

Kamenoff v. Meadows

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided August 6, 1970No. 4911PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WILSON, Justice.

The three points presented in this non-jury suit for possession of realty assert there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to sustain the trial court findings to the effect that defendant-appellees properly exercised their option to renew their leases, and that plaintiff had ratified the renewals. We affirm.

Defendant-appellees claim under separate recorded written leases, and it is necessary to test the record against the points as to .each defendant separately. Defendant Meadows leased property from plaintiff’s predecessor in title, Bridwell, for a five-year term…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Southland Life Insurance v. GreenwadeTexas Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Sanderson v. SandersonTexas Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Miller v. HodgesTexas Commission of Appeals · 1924
  4. Sudduth v. Commonwealth County Mutual Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Houston County v. Leo L. Landauer & Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1968

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Brown v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)1990
  2. Meadows v. Midland Super Block Joint Venture, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2008
  3. White v. RCA SERVICE COMPANYSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
  4. John B. Meadows Henry Edward Meadows, Jr. Thomas Oliver Meadows And RR Meadows QTIP Trust, John B. Meadows, Trustee v. Midland Super Block Joint Venture, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API