Legal Opinion
Holzer v. Read
California Supreme Court
Decided July 30, 1932No. Docket No. S.F. 13917PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TYLER, J, pro tem.
Action to quiet title to certain lands situated in the county of Santa Cruz. The land described in. the complaint consists of about fifty acres. Some seventeen persons were made defendants, all of whom defaulted except John F. MacKenzie, Maria MacKenzie, Peter Colly and Mary Ann Colly. These defendants denied title in plaintiff to a certain portion of the lands, and by way of cross-complaint alleged title to such portions in themselves by adverse possession. The trial court found all the allegations of the complaint to be true and all of the allegations of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Hirshfeld v. DanaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Promis v. DukeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Wright v. RoseberryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Janson v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Helene Marceau Sidebotham v. W. L. Robison, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Sidebotham, Deceased, and Robert Sidebotham and James SidebothamCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955
- Sorensen v. CostaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Sublett v. Henry's Turk & Taylor LunchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Nelson v. Fernando Nelson & SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Miller v. JohnstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.