Legal Opinion

Stieglitz v. Settle

California Supreme Court

Decided May 16, 1917No. L. A. No. 3806PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant, Maria Encarnación de Sepulveda Settle, to recover his commissions as broker for services which he had rendered in the sale of certain of defendant’s land. The other defendant is the husband of Maria Encarnación, married to her after the consummation of the transactions forming the basis of this litigation. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence defendants moved for a nonsuit upon “the general broad ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision and that the plaintiff’s evidence showed moral turpitude.” The court granted the nonsuit upon the ground…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Estate of CasparCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Estate of ChevallierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Cox v. DelmasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Felton v. Le BretonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Ames v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Ferrara v. La SalaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  3. Southern Pacific Co. v. SwansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  4. Bloom v. AllenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  5. Croll v. MoormanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

4 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