Legal Opinion

Hignell v. Gebala

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 10, 1949No. Civ. 13906PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.

Plaintiffs were awarded a judgment for restitution of premises, attorney’s fees, and declaring a forfeiture of lease on the ground that defendant had violated the terms of the lease by operating a real estate business on the leased premises. Thereafter defendant filed a petition for relief against forfeiture. The court ordered this petition dismissed. Defendant appeals from both the judgment and the order made after judgment. Whether defendant actually operated such business is the main fact issue in the case.

Defendant contends (1) that there is insufficient evidence to justify a finding that…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Crowell v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  2. Pfitzer v. CandeiasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. Harris v. BissellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  4. Devonshire v. LangstaffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Matthews v. DiggesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Fifth & Broadway Partnership v. Kimny, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1980
  2. 366-388 Geary Street, L.P. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  3. Folberg v. Clara G. R. Kinney Co.California Court of Appeal · 1980
  4. Pehau v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  5. Gasser v. Jet Craft Ltd.Nevada Supreme Court · 1971

7 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