Legal Opinion
Pine v. Tiedt
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 10, 1965No. Civ. 28150PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLillie, J.
Defendants appeal from an interlocutory decree in partition. Inasmuch as appellants do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, we summarize only those facts relative to the legal issue involved. The evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to respondent. (Grainger v. Antoyan, 48 Cal.2d 805 [313 P.2d 848].)
In 1952 A. A. Guilliaum (not a party herein), owner and operator of Los Alamitos Sanitarium, invited friends and relatives to participate in the acquisition of certain real property under option to him upon which he intended to build another convalescent…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Grainger v. AntoyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Miranda v. MirandaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- De Roulet v. MitchelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Asels v. AselsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Thomas v. WitteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- American Medical International, Inc. v. FellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- LEG INVESTMENTS v. BoxlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Braaten v. BraatenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
- Penasquitos, Inc. v. HolladayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.