Legal Opinion
Haney v. Kinevan
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 28, 1946No. Civ. 14979PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.
From a judgment in favor of defendants in an action to quiet title to certain property located in Santa Barbara County, plaintiffs appeal.
*344This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:
Were plaintiffs barred by the provisions of section 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure from maintaining the present action?
This question must be answered in the affirmative and is governed by the following pertinent rules of law:(1) An action for the recovery of real property cannot be maintained unless the person asserting the cause of action or under whose title the action is prosecuted, or the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- South Tule Independent Ditch Co. v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Townsend v. DriverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Patchett v. WebberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Housing Authority v. PirroneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wheeler v. GreggCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- J. Bryant Kasey and Maryann Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Stafford v. BallingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Minnegren v. NozarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.