Legal Opinion
Colyear v. Tobriner
California Supreme Court
Decided November 25, 1936No. S. F. 15495PublishedCited by 49 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
Plaintiff brought this action to obtain a judicial determination that he had exercised an option to renew contained in a lease of premises in San Francisco owned by defendants, and was entitled to possession of said premises for a term of two years. From a judgment which decreed that plaintiff had not exercised said option, and that defendants and cross-complainants should be restored to possession, plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
The lease in question was executed by one Kurz, then owner of the property, for a term of one year expiring on May 9,1934, at a monthly rental of $45. The option…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Shearman v. JorgensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Heinlen v. HeilbronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Stockton Automobile Co. v. ConferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Sun P. P. Assn. v. . Remington P. P. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Remington Paper & Power Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Welk v. BidwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
- Simpson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Forslund v. ForslundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Hunstock v. Estate Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1943
- Cicinelli v. IwasakiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.