Legal Opinion

Doyle v. Hampton

California Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1911No. L.A. No. 2631PublishedCited by 15 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

This action was brought by plaintiff to have it adjudged that he is the owner of a lot of land in the Lewis Tract, Los Angeles County, that the defendants Hampton, Lewis, and Rich, have no interest therein, and that a certain judgment in favor of Lewis in an action brought by him against plaintiff and others, adjudging said Lewis to be the owner of said land, be declared void, because fraudulently obtained. The action is similar in character to that upheld in Parsons v. Weis, 144 Cal. 410, [77 P. 1007]. The defendants Lewis and Rich were duly served with summons, but failed to appear, and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Parsons v. WeisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Dunlap v. SteereCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Hayden v. HaydenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Follette v. Pacific Light & Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Stevens v. TorreganoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. OC Interior Services, LLC v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  4. Marlenee v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Wood v. RoachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

10 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