Legal Opinion

Mazza v. Austin

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 16, 1938No. Civ. 10696PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.

Writ of review. Petitioner, as executrix of the estate of Mary Tunzi, seeks to annul an order of respondent court by which petitioner was “authorized and directed” to compromise certain claims of the estate against George Cerini, Mary Allison, D. R. Owen, and the estate of John Cerini, all debtors of the estate of Mary Tunzi.

From the return, it appears that on June 21, 1937, the above-named debtors of the estate of Mary Tunzi filed a petition in respondent court in which they recited that they owed certain sums of money to the estate of Mary Tunzi, that said sums cannot be paid in full and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McPike v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Merrill v. BachelderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Estate of DamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. AgnelloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. California State Psychological Ass'n v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  3. Estate of MajtanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  4. Boyd v. WoodruffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. West v. U. L. C. Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1965

2 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