Legal Opinion

Brady v. Carman

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 21, 1960No. Civ. 18916PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TAYLOR, J. pro tem. *

filed an action for dam-

Plaintiffs ages for fraud alleged to have been committed by the defendants in the sale of a residential lot. The case was tried before the court without a jury. At the close of the plaintiffs ’ case, the court granted defendants’ motion for a nonsuit. Plaintiffs appeal from this order.

The material facts, as viewed most favorably to the plaintiffs, are as follows. The plaintiffs bought a lot for $15,500 in an exclusive subdivision in Hillsborough. Defendant Car- man handled the sale as an employee of defendant Coldwell, Banker & Company who in turn…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Seneris v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Leonard v. Watsonville Community HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Easton v. StrassburgerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  2. Jordan v. FlyntSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
  3. Secor v. KnightUtah Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Carleton v. TortosaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  5. Field v. Century 21 Klowden-Forness RealtyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998

11 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