Legal Opinion

Watson v. Poore

California Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1941No. L. A. 16787; L. A. 16788; L. A. 16789PublishedCited by 50 opinions

Hector P. Baida and Tanner, Odell & Taft for Appellants. B. W. Burkhead, Claude A. Shutt and Arthur E. Briggs for Respondents.

1Opinion of the CourtCarter, J.

These three cases were consolidated in the court below and on this appeal. They all involve the interests of the respective parties in a certain ten acre tract of real property situated in Los Angeles County. From the voluminous pleadings it appears that the nature of the actions is essentially as follows:

In the first action respondent, Watson, sought to have established a resulting trust in his favor in the real property against appellants, Alvin H. Poore and Beulah Poore, husband and wife. Involved in that action, by reason of Poores’ defenses, also were a release and deeds to the property…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Taylor v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Brown v. SpencerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Allstead v. LaumeisterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  4. Webb v. VercoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Anderson v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304California Court of Appeal · 1964
  2. Stark v. CokerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Viner v. UntrechtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Cason v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn.California Supreme Court · 1951
  5. DeYoung v. DeYoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946

45 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