Legal Opinion

Pimentel v. the Hall-Baker Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 18, 1939No. Civ. 2265PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

This is an action to quiet title to land in Kern County. The complaint is in the form usual in such actions. Defendant, in its answer to the complaint, admitted plaintiff’s title and right to possession subject to defendant’s interest therein and right to possession thereof, of as much as was conveniently necessary for its operations, under an oil lease. The oil lease was executed by the parties on December 15, 1936. It was attached to and made a part of the answer. In a separate defense defendant pleaded its title and right to possession under the lease and alleged it had “fully complied…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Callahan v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Dabney v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  3. California Trust Co. v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Dabney-Johnston Oil Corp. v. WaldenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Peterson v. GibbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Gavina v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Victory Oil Co. v. Hancock Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Vanzandt v. HeilmanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Dallapi v. CampbellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Kennecott Corp. v. Union Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1987

11 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