Legal Opinion
McKinney v. Kull
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 8, 1981No. Civ. 20006PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BLEASE, J.
Plaintiffs, Derrill L. McKinney and Malinda McKinney, appeal from a judgment quieting title in defendants, Norman D. Kull and Peggy L. Kull, entered after the trial court found that a fence constituted an agreed boundary between their land parcels.
Facts
The case was tried to the court on an agreed statement of facts and documents which show that plaintiffs and defendants own adjoining parcels which were once part of a larger property. The parcels were created by subdivision in 1948. The deeds in defendants’ chain of title are tied to the southwest corner of section 32 and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- See v. North American Accident InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Zuckerman v. Underwriters at Lloyd'sCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Finley v. Yuba County Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Oliver & Williams Elevator Corp. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1986
- Howard v. Owens CorningCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Nguyen v. CalhounCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Oakdale Village Group v. FongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.