Legal Opinion
Sterling v. Taylor
California Supreme Court
Decided March 1, 2007No. S121676PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CORRIGAN, J.
The statute of frauds provides that certain contracts “are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged . . . .” (Civ. Code, § 1624.) In this case, the Court of Appeal held that a memorandum regarding the sale of several apartment buildings was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Defendants contend the court improperly considered extrinsic evidence to resolve uncertainties in the terms identifying the seller, the property, and the price.
*762We reverse, but not because the court consulted extrinsic…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Kahn v. East Side Union High School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- California Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
- Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1995
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Carlsen v. KoivumakiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- First National Mortgage Co. v. Federal Realty Investment TrustCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Phelps v. State Water Resources Control BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Smyth v. Berman, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.