Legal Opinion

Warden v. Bailey

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 21, 1933No. Docket No. 4733PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TUTTLE, J., pro tem.

This action was brought for the purpose of quieting title to lots 12 and 13 of Palm Island tract in Los Angeles County. Judgment went for defendants., and this appeal is prosecuted therefrom.

Neither party has attempted to state the facts of the case in his brief. Apparently they proceed upon the assumption that this court heard all the evidence. We are left to the expedient of picking up such facts as appear here and there throughout the discussion. The transcript is filled with discussions of legal points. The facts are interspersed. If section 2 of rule VIII governing…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Richardson v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Zilmer v. GerichtenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Bagley v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  4. Devincenzi v. FigoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Morrissey v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Aggelos v. Zella Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Kendall v. WalkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Norbeck v. AllensonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API