Legal Opinion
Sumitomo Bank v. Davis
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 25, 1992No. Docket Nos. H008564, H008739PublishedCited by 5 opinions
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STONE, J. *
1. Introduction
Stan Davis and Metropolis Capital Corporation, partners in a partnership owning commercial realty in San Jose (partners), appeal from an order appointing a receiver to manage the property during this action brought by Sumitomo Bank of California (Bank) to obtain judicial foreclosure of a first deed of trust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (g).) Partners have also petitioned for writ relief from this order and from an order overruling their demurrer. We dispose of both the appeal and the writ petition in this opinion.
Partners contend the trial court erred in…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Princess Lida of Thurn and Taxis v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Lake Street Elevated RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Sichler v. LookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Farmland Irrigation Co. v. DopplmaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Vallely Investments, L.P. v. BancAmerica Commercial Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- In re Hassen Imports PartnershipUnited States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 2013
- United States v. Real Property at 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Real Property At 2659 Roundhill Drive, Alamo, CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002