Legal Opinion

Hasekian v. Krotz

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 18, 1968No. Civ. 32381PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COLLINS, J. pro tem. *

Two separate appeals are here presented, the first by one of the original plaintiffs (Hasekian) and the second by the defendants against whom judgment was rendered. Hasekian contends that the court erred in awarding him a judgment for only $12,000, and that he should have been awarded $72,000. Defendants, on their appeal, contend that a judgment in any amount was improper under the law and the facts.

Chronologically stated, these are the pertinent facts;

The defendant Longhollow Land & Livestock Company is a limited partnership composed of David T. Shiffman and Eobert…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Batson v. StrehlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Freeman v. JerginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Shaffer v. BeinhornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Palmer v. WahlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Schomig v. KeiserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Tyrone v. KelleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  3. Preach v. Monter RainbowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  4. Brakhage v. Georgetown Associates, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. Zappas v. King Williams Press, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1970

4 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