Legal Opinion
Zintel Holdings v. McLean
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 18, 2012No. B236139PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PERLUSS, P. J.
Zintel Holdings, LLC (Zintel), sued Lilo McLean and her son, Mark Huth, to invalidate or equitably reform their allegedly fraudulent *434residential apartment lease. McLean cross-complained for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment and several related torts. After the court denied relief on both the complaint and cross-complaint on motions for summary judgment, it entered judgment and awarded costs of approximately $2,500 to McLean and Huth pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 (section 1032), but concluded there was no prevailing party under Civil Code…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Chia-Lee Hsu v. AbbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Goodman v. LozanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2011
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Charton v. HarkeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Hill v. Affirmed Housing GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- David S. Karton, a Law Corp. v. DoughertyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Borrelli v. Scott CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2013
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.