Legal Opinion

Williams v. Caruso Enterprises, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 27, 1956No. Civ. A. 8821PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPatrosso, J.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover money paid by him on account of the purchase price of an automobile under a conditional sales contract which it is alleged did not conform to the requirements of Civil Code, section 2982. Defendants’ answer to plaintiff’s complaint, in addition to a denial of the material allegations thereof, set up a counterclaim or offset for the reasonable value of the use of the automobile while in the possession of the plaintiff, which was alleged to be $7.00 per day or the total sum of $2,030. Upon the trial it was stipulated that the reasonable rental value…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Carter v. Seaboard Finance Co.California Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Domestic & Foreign Petroleum Co. v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Pollak v. StauntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Western Oil & Refining Co. v. Venago Oil Corp.California Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Comet Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. CartwrightCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1952

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. KyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. City Lincoln-Mercury Co. v. LindseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Brown v. HornsteinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Lewis v. Muntz Car Co.California Supreme Court · 1958

3 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