Legal Opinion

Rees v. Drinning

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 6, 1944No. Civ. 7019PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, P. J.

Plaintiffs and defendants own adjoining residences fronting on the south line of Elm Street in Napa, defendants’ property lying to the west of plaintiffs’ lot. Both homes were built in 1938 by Will F. Bishop who then owned both properties and lots adjoining, same on both sides. The Drinning house was built first, and was rented for several years. It was then sold by Mr. Bishop, and in January, 1942, came into the possession of defendants. After the construction of the house now owned by plaintiffs, Bishop rented it for a short time to George Provine, then sold it to Dr. George Loye. In…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cheda v. BodkinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Jersey Farm Co. v. Atlanta Realty Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Quinlan v. NobleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Nay v. BernardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Kallenburg v. LongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Owsley v. HamnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Reese v. BorghiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Marin County Hospital District v. CicurelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. Thorstrom v. ThorstromCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Hillside Development Co. v. FieldsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996

2 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