Legal Opinion

Palo and Dodini v. City of Oakland

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 20, 1947No. Civ. 13401PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.

Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment for defendants in an action to recover a $1,000 guarantee deposit which the defendants declared forfeited for failure of plaintiffs to enter into an awarded contract.

There is no dispute as to the facts. The defendant city of Oakland advertised for bids for the concession to operate electric boats upon Lake Merritt for the fiscal year 1945-1946. On April 5, 1945, pursuant to such call, plaintiffs filed their bid, and deposited with the Oakland Board of Playground Directors their certified check for $1,000, as and for a guarantee that in the event they were…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. United States v. Purcell Envelope Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
  2. Dambmann v. . SchultingNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  3. Cameron-Hawn Realty Co. v. . City of AlbanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
  4. Garfielde v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  5. Parsons v. SmilieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. M. F. Kemper Construction Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Ridgley v. Topa Thrift & Loan Assn.California Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Barkis v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Barkis v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Petrovich v. City of ArcadiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

17 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