Legal Opinion

Falkenstein v. Popper

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 31, 1947No. Civ. 13412PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action for specific performance of an option to purchase, on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action.

On April 25, 1942, the parties entered into a five-year lease of certain business property in San Francisco. The only part of the lease pertinent to this appeal is paragraph 23, subdivisions (a) and (b) : “Lessor hereby gives to Lessee an opportunity to purchase the real property and improvements known as No. 4116 Geary Boulevard Street, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  2. McCluskey v. WareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. R. I. Realty Co. v. TerrellNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
  4. Schroeder v. GemeinderNevada Supreme Court · 1875
  5. De Rutte v. MuldrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Ablett v. ClausonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Nelson v. ReisnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. King v. Dalton Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
  4. Schwartz v. ShapiroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  5. A. B. C. Distributing Co. v. Distillers Distributing Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1957

5 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