Legal Opinion

Campanella v. Campanella

California Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 1928No. Docket No. L.A. 7899PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

We are satisfied with the conclusion of the learned district court of appeal in this cause and adopt a part of its opinion herein:

“This is an action in damages for deceit. Judgment was entered against defendant for $3,958.33- and costs on the verdict of a jury. Defendant moved for a new trial, his motion was granted and plaintiff appealed.
“In his second amended complaint plaintiff alleged that he and defendant and one Giovanni Gai were the owners of 167% acres of land as tenants in common, each owning a one-third interest; that they had been partners in manufacturing wine; that defendant was…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Harrison v. Sutter Street RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. City of Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co.California Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Haldeman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  4. Johnston v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Herdan v. HansonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Mazzotta v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Goddard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Olwell v. W. L. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Kahn v. KahnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977

38 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