Legal Opinion

Sitkei v. Frimel

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 4, 1948No. Civ. 16217PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, J.

Appeal from an order granting motion for new trial.

This is an action for partition of real property. Findings and interlocutory judgment were entered decreeing that plaintiff and defendant Frimel (hereinafter referred to as respondent) were the owners in fee of the property, each an undivided one-half interest, and ordering it to be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties after paying costs and expenses.

The interlocutory judgment was entered on March 26, 1947. On April 3, 1947, notice of entry of judgment was served and on the same day respondent served and filed a notice of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Gay v. TorranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Hicks v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Kimic v. San Jose-Los Gatos Interurban Ry.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Union Collection Co. v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. People v. FeldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Boynton v. McKalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  2. Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hosp.California Supreme Court · 2017
  3. Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. Ungar Electric Tools, Inc. v. Sid Ungar Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1961
  5. Crespo v. CookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

15 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