Legal Opinion

Weisz v. McKee

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 17, 1939No. Civ. 2178PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, J.

This action, as presented in the second amended complaint, was one for reformation of a deed and to determine, declare and quiet title to real property and oil royalties between plaintiffs and defendants and respondents. We will briefly state the facts as taken from the pleadings and about which there is no controversy.

The respondents acquired, on or before September 10, 1926, certain undivided interests in the property described in the plaintiffs’ complaint. On August 8, 1933, a long time subsequent to the acquiring by respondents of their interests, defendants W. R. McKee and Julia S. McKee…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. ThorntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Rockey v. VieuxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Rocca v. SteinmetzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Islais & Salinas Water Co. v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Elmore v. TingleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Miller v. McLaglenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  3. Ross v. George Pepperdine FoundationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. Stilwell v. TrutanichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Thorson v. Western Development Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1967

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API