Nemeth v. Pankost
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPierce, P. J.
On this appeal from a money judgment for a share of real estate commissions earned, the questions presented are (1) whether the lump sum finding of the amount due satisfies the requirement that the trial court’s facts found “fairly disclose the court’s determination of all issues of fact” (Code Civ. Proc., § 632), and (2) whether substantial evidence supports the amount found due. We answer these questions affirmatively and affirm the judgment.
Plaintiff worked as a real estate salesman for defendant broker from January 1, 1958, to October 1959 under two separate arrangements. Until…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sears v. RuleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Garcia v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Lewetzow v. SapiroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Ruppert v. JacksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Ortiz v. AvilaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Morgan v. International Aviation Underwriters, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District v. Central Valley National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968