Legal Opinion

Harmon Enterprises, Inc. v. Vroman

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 2, 1959No. Civ. 23193PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PATROSSO, J. pro tem. *

Action to quiet title to real property.

The trial court adjudged that neither plaintiff nor defendants were entitled to a judgment quieting title to the property in question and plaintiff appeals.

The complaint is in the usual form alleging that plaintiff is the owner of the property therein described; that defendants claim and assert an interest therein adverse to plaintiff; that the claims of the defendants are without right and that the defendants have no right, title or interest therein or thereto. Defendants Glenn A. Yroman and Lettie Yroman filed an answer denying…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Boone v. TemplemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Gonzalez v. HiroseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Snell v. WelchMontana Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Smart v. PeekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Warden v. StollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Moeller v. Chun-Yen LienCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  2. Baypoint Mortgage Corp. v. Crest Premium Real Estate Investment RetirementCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  3. Lopez v. BellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Jozovich v. Central California Berry Growers Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API