Legal Opinion
Lippman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided March 8, 1955No. L. A. 23327PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.
The rental agreed to be paid by Sears, Roebuck and Company for a building leased to it by Lazard Lippman was $285 per month and an additional amount based upon the total sales made by the lessee. The appeal of the lessee from an adverse judgment presents for decision the question as to the amount of rent a lessor is entitled to receive under a “percentage,” lease from a tenant who discontinues the use of demised property for retail sales and occupies it for other purposes.
Under the lease executed by Lippman and Sears the premises were “to be occupied for the sale and storage of general…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cousins Investment Co. v. Hastings Clothing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941
- Union Oil Co. v. Union Sugar Co.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Masciotra v. HarlowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Stockton Dry Goods Co. v. GirshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Selber Bros. v. Newstadt's Shoe StoresSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1980
- Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. BlumbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
- Stop & Shop, Inc. v. GanemMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964
- Third Story Music, Inc. v. WaitsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Charles C. Chapman Building Co. v. California MartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.