Legal Opinion

Riechhold v. Sommarstrom Investment Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 18, 1927No. Docket No. 5473PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.

Action for damages for disturbance of lease. Defendant Sommarstrom Investment Company, a corporation, was at the time of the commencement of this action the owner of a three-story building situated in the city of Berkeley. The two upper stories thereof were divided into apartments which were occupied by some fifteen families. The lower story was divided into stores used for business purposes. These stores were leased by the company to one Witkow, co-defendant herein, for a term of five years ending on December 15, 1924. The stores were not partitioned off one from the other, but constituted…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Agar v. WinslowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Hawthorne v. SiegelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Veysey v. MoriyamaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Dwyer v. CarrollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Owsley v. HamnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Umeka Lewis v. John J. Jaeger, Robert E. Boge, and the City of DubuqueSupreme Court of Iowa · 2012
  3. Pierce v. NashCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1965
  5. Johnson v. SnyderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950

9 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