Hull v. Sheehan
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
HANSON, J. pro tem.
Appellants instituted the action below to recover damages for false representations made by respondents upon a sale of a motel to appellants. The trial court found that the false representations had been made but that appellants had not sustained any damages. This finding, appellants contend, is not sustained by any admissible evidence. In short, appellants contend that respondents’ expert witness was not qualified to express an opinion as to the value of the motel, and second, that his testimony as to market value should have been struck out as it was based upon improper…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co. v. Southern Refining Co.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Ellenberger v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Benner v. HooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lazar v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Conrad v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Lazar v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Rhine v. MillerNevada Supreme Court · 1978
- Conrad v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.