Legal Opinion

Roloff v. Hundeby

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 14, 1930No. Docket No. 3875PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, J., pro tem.

This is an action for damages for fraudulent representations whereby defendants procured an exchange of property between themselves and the plain tiff. Defendants appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal presents questions of mixed law and fact which necessitates somewhat of a review of the case as found.

While appellants concede the finality of the trial court’s determination on the conflicting facts, at the same time they ignore the court’s findings, and base their arguments as to the sufficiency of the evidence upon their view of the evidence in the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hulen v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Krasky v. WollpertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Herdan v. HansonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Harris v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Hotaling v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. People v. GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  2. Bechtold v. Bishop & Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1940
  3. City of Gilroy v. FiliceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. Employees' Participating Assn. v. PineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. Gustafson v. BlunkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

5 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