Legal Opinion

Butler v. Holman

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 15, 1956No. Civ. 5356PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COUGHLIN, J. pro tem. *

In 1913, Aaron B. Butler received a patent from the United States government to land in Fresno County, described as the South one-half of the Southeast quarter and the South one-half of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 18 South, Range 13 Bast, M. D. B. M. Upon his death the plaintiffs Butler were appointed executors of his will. Several years thereafter, the defendants James and Thickstun located the “Mistake Lode Mining Claim” upon a deposit of chrome ore which they contend is situated immediately south of the Butler property, in Section 2, Township 19…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Newport v. HattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Cahill v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Hardin v. San Jose City Lines, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Marshall v. MarshallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  2. Russell v. United Pacific InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Ezer v. FuchslochCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  4. Hunter v. SchultzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  5. Curtin v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

5 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