Legal Opinion
Smissaert v. Chiodo
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 2, 1958No. Civ. 17704PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.
In this appeal by plaintiff from an adverse judgment in an action (1) for specific performance, or, in the alternative, damages, and (2) for declaratory relief, plaintiff raises many questions which, however, become moot if the trial court’s finding to the effect that there was no final contract between the parties is supported. This question, in turn, depends upon whether the purported contract shows on its face that it was not intended to be a final contract.
The Undisputed Facts
Defendant Chiodo Candy Company, a corporation, owns the property in question. To raise additional capital it…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- King v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Gavina v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Levin v. SaroffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Fly v. ClineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Pacific Improvement Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Roth v. Garcia MarquezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Vestar Development Ii, Llc, an Arizona Limited Liability v. General Dynamics Corporation, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Beck v. American Health Group International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- Ersa Grae Corp. v. Fluor Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- First National Mortgage Co. v. Federal Realty Investment TrustCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.