Legal Opinion

Warden v. Stoll

California Supreme Court

Decided September 30, 1930No. Docket No. L.A. 10534PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

This is an action to quiet title by a complaint in the usual form, alleging that plaintiff is the owner of the land described in the complaint; that defendants assert an adverse claim thereto; that said adverse claim is without merit, and praying that plaintiff’s title be quieted as against the defendants. The defendants answered, denied that plaintiff was the owner, and alleged that the defendants are the owners. Defendants, in the prayer of their answer, merely asked that plaintiff take nothing by her action and that defendants be awarded their costs. No request for any affirmative relief…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Tupman v. HaberkernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Kirk v. CulleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Larkin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Miller v. LucoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Wilson v. MadisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Smith v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Smart v. PeekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Hudson v. WestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Wagner v. WorrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

12 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