Legal Opinion
Airola v. Gorham
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 10, 1942No. Civ. 12107PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLING, J. pro
tem.Separate appeals were taken by the two defendants from a judgment of the trial court decreeing that they held certain real property in trust for the plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of Lucinda Gorham, deceased. Appellant Prank E, Gorham is a son of the decedent, and appellant Dorothy L. Gorham is the widow of George G. Gorham, another son of the decedent. Por convenience these two sons of decedent will be referred to in this opinion as Prank and George and the decedent as Lucinda.
Prior to March 27, 1928, the estates of the deceased father of Prank and George and of…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Huysman v. KirschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Lightner Mining Co. v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Marsh v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Brown v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Cooney v. GlynnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Bennett v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Hansen v. Bear Film Co.California Supreme Court · 1946
- Costa v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Steinberger v. SteinbergerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Marshall v. MarshallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.