Legal Opinion

Pimentel v. Houk

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 25, 1951No. Civ. 7808PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, P. J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for the collection of two promissory notes. Defendant filed an amended answer and a “counterclaim and/or cross-complaint,” the latter being in two counts. In the first count defendant sought damages against plaintiff, alleging that he was the lessee of certain lands and the owner of certain implements and farming equipment essential for the farming of his leased lands upon which he had growing crops of beets, peas, onions and lettuce; that plaintiff, at the time of the filing of his action against defendant, caused a writ of attachment to issue, a.nd, well knowing…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Hauser v. BartowNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
  2. Mullins v. SandersSupreme Court of Virginia · 1949
  3. Tranchina v. ArcinasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Melton v. RickmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. Melton v. . RickmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Thornton v. RhodenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  2. White Lighting Co. v. WolfsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Batten v. AbramsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1981
  4. Nevada Credit Rating Bureau, Inc. v. WilliamsNevada Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Ion Equipment Corp. v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980

21 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