Legal Opinion · Dissent

Forman v. Chicago Title Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 27, 1995No. B074889Published

1Dissent

*1007WOODS, (Fred) J.

I respectfully dissent. The majority, among other errors, omit some critical operative facts contained in the record which, in my opinion, militate affirming the judgment. For that reason, I deem it necessary to set forth a statement of facts and proceedings below incorporating the operative facts.

Facts and Proceedings in the Trial Court

In September 1987, Forman purchased a vacant 3.89-acre parcel of real property located in the City of Bellflower. In connection with that purchase, Chicago Title issued a title insurance policy to Forman.

At the time Chicago Title issued the…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1987
  3. Lattin v. GilletteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Bradler v. CraigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Saliter v. Pierce Brothers MortuariesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978

15 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