Legal Opinion

Neet v. Holmes

California Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1944No. L. A. 18495PublishedCited by 76 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

The plaintiffs have appealed from a judgment of dismissal following an order- sustaining demurrers to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. The action is to rescind a mining lease and to establish a constructive trust of mining claims on the ground of the alleged fraud of certain of the defendants.

The briginal complaint was filed August 28, 1940. The final amended complaint contained four causes.of action, .The following appears from the allegations thereof:

In 1896 Mary E. Greathouse was the' owner.of the 55/100ths interest in three patented mining claims, known as the Padre, *452Ma…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Patterson v. HewittSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Stromerson v. AverillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. McCall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Bancroft v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Leeper v. BeltramiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  3. GHK Associates v. Mayer Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
  4. Baker v. Beech Aircraft Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1974
  5. Day v. GreeneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963

71 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