Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ikegami Electronics USA, Inc. v. Baumann

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 31, 1988No. G004203Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CROSBY, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I would affirm. The probate judge correctly found the district court judgment was res judicata as to the existence of the joint tenancy on the day Leola Baumann died because the federal judge specifically held any attempt by the debtor to transfer his interest was “null and void” as to Ikegami. Thus, the federal judgment must mean the district court intended Ikegami to succeed to John Baumann’s position as a surviving joint tenant. The estate either raised or should have raised and obtained a ruling in the district court on the issue which misleads the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. SimsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Slater v. BlackwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Busick v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Hollywood Circle, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Gerry v. NorthrupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API