Legal Opinion

Meissner v. Paulson

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 28, 1989No. C000930PublishedCited by 25 opinions

[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MARLER, J.

After a fire on premises leased to Richard Paulson, Ernest Meissner, the landlord, and his insurer, United Pacific/Reliance Insurance Companies (collectively the plaintiffs), sued Paulson for rent owed after the premises had been restored and for damages caused by the fire. Paulson died during the discovery phase of the case. The parties stipulated the Estate of Paulson would be substituted as nominal defendant, but that any judgment would be recovered from Paulson’s insurer, Fremont Indemnity Company, the real party in interest (collectively the defendants). Before the case…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Randles v. LowryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  2. Hutchins v. WatersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Barella v. Exchange BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  2. Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1994
  3. Taing v. Johnson Scaffolding Co.California Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Vick v. DaCORSICalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003

20 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