Legal Opinion

Heliotis v. Schuman

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 28, 1986No. Docket Nos. A028947, A027232PublishedCited by 19 opinions

[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

  1. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Page v. FrazierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1983
  5. Easton v. StrassburgerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. LiMandri v. JudkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  2. Tietsworth v. SearsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2010
  3. OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
  5. La Jolla Village Homeowners' Ass'n v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

14 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