Legal Opinion

Reas v. Clemence

California Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1916No. L. A. No. 3773PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is an appeal from an ex parte order appointing a receiver upon the application of the plaintiff, and based solely upon the allegations of the complaint. The appellants claim that the facts stated do not justify the appointment of a receiver.

The complaint stated a cause of action for partition of a tract of land. It is alleged that the plaintiff and defendants own, as tenants in common, the land, together with the well, pumping plant, and pipe-line used in connection therewith, situated upon the premises, and that they are now in possession thereof. The order appointing the receiver…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Goodale v. Fifteenth District CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bailey v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Sanborn v. City of BoulderSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923
  3. Morgan v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  4. Hatfield v. MeersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1966
  5. People v. PhillipsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

2 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