Legal Opinion
Deangeles v. Cotta
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 28, 1923No. Civ. No. 2630PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, P. J.
This is an action of unlawful detainer brought to recover possession of certain lands on the alleged ground that the defendants had broken their covenant not to assign the lease under which they held. Defendants Luiz C. Amaro, Luiz Deniz, and George Silva failed to answer and default judgment was entered against them. The other defendants were given judgment and plaintiff has appealed.
The complaint alleges that “defendants” Joe D. Cotta, Luiz Deniz, Frank Deniz and Luiz C. Amaro, without the consent of first party in writing ... or without his consent in any other manner given, and without…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Randol v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- White v. Huber Drug Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Saxeney v. PanisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- Spangler v. SpanglerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Kendis v. CohnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Burns v. McGrawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Adelstein v. GreenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Kleros Building Corp. v. BattagliaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1952
- Boston Properties v. Pirelli Tire Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.