Legal Opinion

Camicia v. Camicia

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 14, 1944No. Civ. 7072PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ADAMS, P. J.—

This action was brought by plaintiffs to secure the partition of certain property owned by plaintiffs and defendants as tenants in common. Trial by jury was waived. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties the trial court made and entered an interlocutory decree which adjudged that the two plaintiffs, husband and wife, were the owners of an undivided one-fourth interest each, in the property in controversy, and that defendant Antone J. Camicia was the owner of an undivided one-half interest therein, and appointed three referees to make partition. Thereafter said referees made their…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rose v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Capuccio v. CaireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Anderson v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Stacey v. HayesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. Otey v. Carmel Sanitary DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sutter Butte Canal Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Ralston v. Dumouchel CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Sutter Butte Canal Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API