Legal Opinion
Stout v. Edmonds
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 22, 1986No. A026756PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RACANELLI, P. J.
This appeal by the Real Estate Commissioner (Commissioner) from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and respondents directing payment of $20,000 out of the Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 10470 et seq.) 1 raises the single issue whether the offending real estate broker “performed acts for which a license is required” within the meaning of section 10471. We will conclude and explain that the licensee’s actions do not fulfill the statutory requirement for indemnity from the Real Estate Fund.
Facts
The facts are essentially…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Nordahl v. Department of Real EstateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Froid v. FoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Merrifield v. EdmondsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Robinson v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- McGaughey v. FoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Stickel v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Horning v. ShilbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- CHANDRA VS. SCHULTENevada Supreme Court · 2019
- In Re Charles Armstrong, Debtor, Charles Armstrong, Helen Armstrong v. Department of Real Estate, State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Horning v. ShilbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.