Legal Opinion
Mitchell v. Poole
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California
Decided February 25, 1988No. Civ. A. No. 17384PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NEWMAN, J.
This cause having been submitted for decision, and fully considered, judgment is ordered as follows:
The judgment is reversed. Appellant to recover costs on appeal.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding that respondent had provided appellant adequate notice to quit.1 He argues that respondent was required to set forth the “good cause” for termination in the notice to quit. We agree.
Civil Code section 1946 provides that a tenancy may be terminated by the landlord if the landlord serves on the tenant a 30-day notice to quit. The notice need not specify the reasons…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Votaw Precision Tool Co. v. Air CanadaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Highland Plastics, Inc. v. EndersAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1980
- In Re Marriage of SchultzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Appel v. BeyerAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1974
- Berry v. RyanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Miller & Desatnik Management Co. v. BullockAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1990
- Mitchell v. PooleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Anchor Pacifica Management Co. v. GreenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012