Legal Opinion
Herzog v. Blatt
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 13, 1947No. Civ. No. 15802PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.
Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial before the court without a jury in an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, defendant appeals.
Statement op Pacts
Por some time prior to January 12, 1945, defendant, Sam Blatt, was the owner of an apartment building located at 456 South Cochran Avenue, Los Angeles. Plaintiff was at all times herein mentioned a duly licensed real estate broker. On or about January 6, 1945, Miss Praser, a real estate agent in the employ of plaintiff, called on Mr. Blatt and requested a listing of the aforementioned apartment house. The details…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Coulter v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Moore v. BorgfeldtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Hicks v. PostCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Fleming v. DolfinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
- Augustine v. TruccoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Franklin v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Rader Co. v. StoneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Gray v. KohlhaseCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.