Legal Opinion

Heifetz v. Bell

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 20, 1950No. Civ. 17965PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.

The judgment herein denied appellants relief in their action to recover for alleged fraud on the part of respondents arising out of appellants’ purchase of a parking lot business owned by Bell and sold through his agents, his codefendants who comprised a real estate brokerage firm.

Bell had given an exclusive listing of the business to his codefendants with the provision that he must realize $1,000 net from the sale and that any amount received above that sum would belong to the brokers. Appellants purchased the business through the brokerage for $2,500 on the representation that the owner…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Johndrow v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Carpenter v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Thompson v. StoakesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Cameron v. CameronCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Ballagh v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Schaefer v. BerinsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. DareCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Greenberg v. HastieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Delbon v. BrazilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Kitzman v. NewmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

1 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