Legal Opinion

Petersen v. Hartell

California Supreme Court

Decided October 21, 1985No. S.F. 24673PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

REYNOSO, J.

—This appeal by plaintiff vendees who wilfully defaulted in making payments under an installment land sale contract requires us to reconsider such vendees’ right to completion of performance. Though we upheld specific performance in MacFadden v. Walker (1971) 5 Cal.3d 809 *106[97 Cal.Rptr. 537, 488 P.2d 1353, 55 A.L.R.3d 1], the trial court below concluded that the granting of such relief is only discretionary and dependent upon a weighing of the equities. Accordingly, it denied specific performance, adjudged that plaintiffs had no interest in the property, and awarded…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Glock v. Howard & Wilson Colony Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias ParishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Barkis v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Barkis v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Meyer v. BenkoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. CQL Original Products, Inc. v. National Hockey League Players' Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  2. Kaufman v. GoldmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  3. Real Estate Analytics, LLC v. VallasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  4. Darbun Enterprises, Inc. v. San Fernando Community HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. CFM COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. Mitts Telecasting CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2005

12 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