Legal Opinion
Connor v. Grosso
California Supreme Court
Decided July 7, 1953No. L. A. 22312PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTraynor, J.
This action was consolidated for trial with Herzog v. Grosso, ante, p. 219 [259 P.2d 429], The trial court found that defendants Paul Grosso and Madolyn Grosso deposited 3,184 cubic yards of material on plaintiff Nan Connor’s property and entered judgment against both defendants for $4,362.08.
Defendant Madolyn Grosso contends that the award of damages against her is not supported by the evidence.* We agree. The fact that Paul Grosso was her husband and that he held the property with her as a joint tenant does not establish her liability. (Goldman v. House, 93 Cal.App. 2d 572, 576 [209 P.2d…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Herzog v. GrossoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Burtis v. Universal Pictures Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1953
- Slater v. Pacific American Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1931
- Brown v. OxtobyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Citizens State Bank v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304California Court of Appeal · 1964
- Herzog v. GrossoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Nelson v. TrujilloUtah Supreme Court · 1982
- Armitage v. DeckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Daly v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.