Legal Opinion

Krug v. Meehan

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 18, 1951No. Civ. 18248PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VALLÉE, J.

Plaintiff brought this action seeking a decree setting aside a conveyance of realty on the ground it had been procured by undue influence. A demurrer of defendant Rose A. Meehan was sustained to the complaint and to an amended complaint. With her demurrer to the complaint defendant Rose A. Meehan filed a cross-complaint seeking a decree quieting title to the realty in her. Plaintiff answered the cross-complaint. The demurrer of Rose A. Meehan was also sustained to a second amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff did not amend within the time allowed and, on motion of Rose…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Sjoberg v. HastorfCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Nicholson v. HendersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Tomales Bay Oyster Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Gwinn v. RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Tsarnas v. BaileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Cope v. CopeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  3. Southern Pacific Land Co. v. Westlake Farms, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1987
  4. Epley v. CalifroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Verdier v. VerdierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

3 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