Legal Opinion

Reiner v. Danial

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 20, 1989No. B028732PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ROWEN, J. *

Defendant, Mehry Danial (Danial), the owner of real property located in the Bel Air section of Los Angeles, appeals a judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs Don Searle, Jr. (Searle, Jr.), an adjacent landowner, and Wayne R. Reiner (Reiner), the prospective purchaser of Searle, Jr.’s interest. Plaintiffs instituted this action in order to determine the enforceability of an agreement executed in 1951 prohibiting construction on Searle, Jr.’s property. We affirm the judgment finding the agreement unenforceable against plaintiffs.

Facts

This dispute arises out of an agreement…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Kraus v. Willow Park Public Golf CourseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  3. Wayt v. PateeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Miller v. DyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Pettis v. General Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Richart v. JacksonSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000
  2. Melendrez v. D & I INVESTMENT, INC.California Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Strekal v. EspeColorado Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. AME Zion Church of Palo Alto, Inc. v. AME Zion Western Episcopal DistrictUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 2021
  5. Nampa Hwy Dist 1 v. KnightIdaho Supreme Court · 2020

3 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