Legal Opinion

Seligman v. Tucker

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 17, 1970No. Civ. 34057PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

REPPY, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for a final mandatory injunction requiring defendants to remove or lower an addition to a single-family residence, for attorney’s fees, and for court costs.

The facts which give meaning to certain concessions of defendants and to their contentions are as follows:

Around February 1963 Bensonia Investment Company acquired a 37-vacant-lot subdivision in a hillside area of Sherman Oaks, California, for the speculative purpose of constructing single-family residences to be sold to the public. The slope of the hills was from higher land at the south…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. People v. DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Ex Parte DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Lorenson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Hannula v. Hacienda Homes, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1949

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. McDonough v. WW Snow Construction Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1973
  2. Guntert v. City of StocktonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  3. Sain v. SilvestreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  4. Eisen v. Tavangarian, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  5. ZABRUCKY v. McAdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

6 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