Legal Opinion

Kelley v. Rouse

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 10, 1961No. Civ. 19126PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

As we shall point out, the bare option, here, lacking consideration, could not prevent the option givers’ withdrawal of the option. In view of the court’s find-, ing that the situation alerted the purchaser of the option to ascertain its true nature, the purchaser could not effectively contend that it relied upon the recitals of consideration in the option, and that therefore the option givers were estopped from showing an absence of consideration.

An attempt to enforce an option for 31% acres of land in Santa Clara County created this litigation. The history of the option begins with its…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Drennan v. Star Paving Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Simmons v. California Institute of TechnologyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Shapiro v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  5. Bard v. KentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Landberg v. LandbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  2. Berryman v. KmochSupreme Court of Kansas · 1977
  3. In Re Estate of WeinsaftMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Schwerin v. ShostakCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Gonick v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1988

1 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