Legal Opinion

Kroepsch v. Muma

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 30, 1969No. Civ. 25155PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.

Defendant, Ethel Muma (hereafter Muma), appeals from an adverse judgment in an action for declaratory relief, contending that: 1) the evidence does not support the findings; 2) plaintiff, Alfred Kroepsch (hereafter Kroepsch), had no legal cause of action against her; and 3) even if so, his action is barred by the statute of limitations. We have concluded that there is no merit to any of these contentions.

The facts favorable to the judgment are as follows: by a deposit receipt dated February 2, 1959, Muma agreed to sell the Narrows Lodge resort with all of its equipment, licenses and supplies…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Green Trees Enterprises, Inc. v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Cook v. WinklepleckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Hobbs v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  4. Lyon v. PettyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  5. MacHado v. BorgesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bonham State Bank v. BeadleTexas Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Minelian v. ManzellaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  3. Westerholm v. 20th Century InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API