Legal Opinion
Chan v. Antepenko
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California
Decided June 13, 1988No. Civ. A. No. 4344PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEIN, P. J.
The plaintiffs, Bianne and Shu W. Chan (hereinafter Owners), commenced an unlawful detainer action against defendant, Gregory *Supp. 23Antepenko, seeking to recover possession of an apartment in their building and damages in the amount of its reasonable rental value. Mr. Antepenko moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Owners had not complied with the notice requirements of San Francisco Administrative Code, chapter 37, the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance1 (hereinafter Rent Ordinance). At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Von Goerlitz v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Roberts v. CaseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Karz v. MechamAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1981
- Tappe v. LiebermanAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1983
3Cited by6 opinions
- Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood ApartmentsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- In Re Safeguard Self-Storage Trust, Debtor. Wattson Pacific Ventures v. Valley Federal Savings & Loan, Safeguard Self-Storage TrustCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Chan v. AntepenkoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Cameron v. Las Orchidias Properties, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- Garcia v. Gresham Apartments Investors CA2/5California Court of Appeal · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.