Heliotis v. Schuman
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHANNELL, J.
Appellant George Heliotis purchased a home from respondents Harry and Bessie Schuman; the Schumans’ attorney, Leonard Berger, assisted. When Heliotis discovered soil damage on the site after the close of escrow, he filed a complaint for rescission, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Schumans and Berger. The trial court dismissed Berger from the action on his motion for summary judgment; the jury rendered a verdict on the merits for the Schumans. Heliotis appeals both judgments, contending that (1) he is entitled to a new trial against the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Page v. FrazierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
- Easton v. StrassburgerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- LiMandri v. JudkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Tietsworth v. SearsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2010
- OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2007
- UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
- La Jolla Village Homeowners' Ass'n v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.