Legal Opinion

Paul v. Layne & Bowler Corp.

California Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 1937No. L. A. 16268PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of nonsuit on the opening statement of the plaintiff’s counsel.

The plaintiff filed an action against Layne & Bowler Corporation for damages alleged to have been suffered by reason of the defendant’s refusal to perform an alleged oral agreement to execute a lease of certain farming property for a period of three years from the fall of 1933 with an option to renew for an additional period of two years. The complaint contained two causes of action. The plaintiff alleged that he took possession of the property in the spring of 1933, farmed 200 acres thereof and…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Zellner v. WassmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Davis v. JudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Bias v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Green v. DuvergeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Farmers Group, Inc. v. TrimbleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1984
  2. Uccello v. LaudenslayerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  3. Loral Corp. v. MoyesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  4. Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1991
  5. Anderson v. StansburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

29 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