Legal Opinion

Reiniger v. Hassell

California Supreme Court

Decided August 9, 1932No. Docket No. L.A. 11060PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TYLER, J., pro tem.

Action for rescission of a contract. The facts show that on the fourteenth day of July 1923, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement whereby defendant agreed to sell and plaintiff agreed to buy an interest in a certain oil and gas lease. The complaint charged that defendant made false and fraudulent representations concerning the acreage of the land covered by the lease, and its location with reference to certain producing wells. The trial court found, upon sufficient evidence, that all of the representations made by defendant were false and untrue and were so…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kleinclaus v. DutardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Menefee v. OxnamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Suhr v. LauterbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Scott v. SymonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Stevinson v. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Valencia v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Williams v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Lawson v. Town & Country Shops, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Kramer v. SanguinettiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. Sibert v. ShaverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

23 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