Legal Opinion

Hair v. State of California

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 31, 1991No. H008156PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

AGLIANO, P. J.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Raylene Hair, the holder of a winning California lottery ticket, brought this action for declaratory relief and to recover damages from defendants State of California and California State Lottery Commission. She claims she is entitled to payment of $900,000 over a 10-year, rather than an 18-year period. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

II. Scope of Review

“Since a summary judgment motion raises only questions of law regarding the construction and effect of the supporting and opposing papers, we…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  2. In Re Lisa R.California Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Aguimatang v. California State LotteryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. Sacramento County Welfare Department v. Victor R.California Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Moody v. Provident Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. American Casualty Co. v. BakerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  2. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bank of America NT&SACalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Michaelian v. State Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery CommissionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2004
  5. Jovine v. FHP, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998

18 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