Legal Opinion
Heesy v. Vaughn
California Supreme Court
Decided April 28, 1948No. L. A. 20368PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying her claims for relief as correlated with her three purported causes of action against defendants: (1) for possession of an automobile; (2) for damages for breach of contract for the sale of the automobile; and (3) for treble damages and attorneys’ fees for the alleged sale at a sum in excess of the O.P.A. ceiling price. Conceding that “there was a substantial conflict in the evidence” in connection with her “first two causes of action,” plaintiff makes “no attack” upon their determination, but she confines her ground of complaint here to the propriety…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rancho Santa Margarita v. VailCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Lightbody v. RussellNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Rusconi v. California Fruit ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Wilson v. J. E. French Co.California Supreme Court · 1931
- Ellenberger v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- G.H.I.I. v. MTS, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1983
- Ashland Oil Co. v. Union Oil Co.Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1977
- People v. MixonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Grossblatt v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- McKeon v. Hastings College of the LawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.