Legal Opinion
Hastings v. Matlock
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 28, 1985No. A017480PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BRAUER, J.
Betty and Donald Matlock appeal from a judgment awarding respondents Carolyn and Doyle Hastings specific performance of an oral out-of-court settlement agreement. The Matlocks make six claims of error, which in essence run thus:(1) The trial court erred in denying the Matlocks a jury trial on the issues of (a) whether the alleged settlement agreement existed at all, and (b) the precise terms thereof;(2) The alleged agreement was unenforceable because it fell within the purview of the statute of frauds;(3) The alleged agreement was unenforceable because it was fatally…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- People v. One 1941 Chevrolet CoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Coast Bank v. HolmesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Levy-Zentner Co. v. SOUTHERN PAC. TRANSPORTATIONCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Jessup Farms v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- Stambaugh v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
- Texaco, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Claim-Defendant-Appellant v. William R. Ponsoldt, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Blickman Turkus v. Mf Downtown SunnyvaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Frankel v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Reveles v. Toyota by the BayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.