Legal Opinion

Tannehill v. Finch

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 22, 1986No. G001995PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WALLIN, J.

What is the appropriate burden of proof instruction in an action based on Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106] in which plaintiff is seeking to establish a one-half interest in property held in the name of the defendant?

I

Elaine Tannehill and Sam Finch met while they were living at a trailer park in Newport Beach. Finch, a construction worker by trade, was *226currently unemployed and acting as handyman around the trailer park. Prior to meeting Tannehill, Finch’s construction jobs often took him to Texas, Arizona and Oregon. During those times,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Marvin v. MarvinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Lillian F. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  3. Enis v. Specialty Auto SalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  4. Toney v. NolderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1989
  2. Weiner v. FleischmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. In Re the Marriage of WeaverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  4. Kostelecky v. Peas in a PodMontana Supreme Court · 2022
  5. Kipfinger v. G.F. ObstetricalMontana Supreme Court · 2023

4 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