Legal Opinion
Stiefel v. McKee
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 29, 1969No. Civ. 33834PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ROTH, P. J.
Respondent Bruce McKee was a licensed salesman for respondent Hugo Becker, a licensed real estate broker doing business as Kent Realty (brokers). Brokers were employed by appellants Stiefel, husband and wife (Stiefels) to assist them in arranging a transaction whereby the Stiefels would dispose of two apartment units owned by them for cash to Mayan Developers (Mayan) said cash to be used in concurrently acquiring a parcel known as Zicaro Property.
Stiefels charge that because of the negligent omission 1 of brokers to make the closing of separate escrows contingent upon the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ward v. TaggartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v. City of MillbraeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Sharove v. MiddlemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Kaye v. TellsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Wilson v. HiseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Marin Storage & Trucking, Inc. v. Benco Contracting & Engineering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Pollack v. LytleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Quezada v. HartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Field v. Century 21 Klowden-Forness RealtyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Zwick v. United Farm Agency, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1976
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.