Legal Opinion
Spector v. Pete
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 4, 1958No. Civ. 5568PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, J.
Plaintiff and appellant brought this action which is set forth in a third amended complaint and supplement thereto (hereinafter referred to as the complaint) for specific performance, to quiet title, and for equitable relief. It is alleged generally that on April 29, 1954, Marcus Pete, Jr., an Indian, and a member of the Palm Springs or Agua Caliente Band of Indians, was the owner of certain lands, to wit: Block 2, Section 14, Township 4 S. R. 4 E., S. B. B. & M., within the Palm Springs Indian reservation; that on said date he entered into a written agreement with the contracting purchasers,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Berka v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- United States v. HellardSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Golden State Co.California Court of Appeal · 1953
- United States v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925
- Larkin v. PaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bacher v. PatencioDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1964
- Palm Springs Paint Co. v. ArenasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Spector v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Andreas v. HendersonDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1958