Legal Opinion

Williams v. Rush

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 10, 1933No. Docket No. 8959PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, J., pro tem.

The plaintiff, in this action to quiet title, claims that the judgment should be reversed because ,(1) the affirmative defense of the answer fails to state facts which would enable the court to decide whether it would be equitable to enforce the contract pleaded, (2) two essential findings are. contrary to the evidence, (3) the court failed to find on a material issue of title and (4) the judgment does not adjudicate the respective interests of the parties.

The complaint, in the usual form, alleges appellant’s ownership and possession of described residential property and…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Tuso v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Wilson v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Neher v. KauffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Baker v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Dore v. Southern Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Meyer v. BenkoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  2. Gavina v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Estate of Johnston v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1968
  4. Caras v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Pimentel v. the Hall-Baker Co.California Court of Appeal · 1939

9 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