Legal Opinion

Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz

California Supreme Court

Decided January 17, 1950No. S. F. 17989PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.

In an action brought by appellants under the Revenue and Taxation Code (§§ 3618-3638) to contest the validity of certain tax deeds, respondent State of California cross-complained seeking to recover the rents, issues and profits taken and retained by appellants after respondent allegedly became the owner of the property. Appellants moved to discharge a writ of attachment issued on the cross-complaint, and they have appealed from an order denying that motion. In support of their contention that the attachment should have been dissolved, appellants claim that the cross-complaint does not state…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Town of Santa Monica v. GuidingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Kohler v. AgassizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Beeson v. SchlossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Cheda v. BodkinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. De Leonis v. EtchepareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Burks v. Poppy Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Carlson v. LindauerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. BladeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  4. South Shore Land Co. v. PetersenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  5. A. E. Cook Co. v. K S Racing Enterprises Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1969

7 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