Legal Opinion

Epa Real Estate Partnership v. Hee Duk Kang

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 11, 1992No. H008838PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PREMO, J.

This is an appeal after a judgment entered in favor of defendants Hee Duk Kang and Inja Kang (hereafter, collectively, Kang), who purchased an apartment complex from plaintiffs EPA Real Estate Partnership and Jack Horton (a partner of EPA Real Estate Partnership) (hereafter, collectively, EPA). On appeal, EPA contends the trial court misapplied the parol evidence rule to exclude evidence of a prior agreement whereby Hee Duk Kang had promised to indemnify EPA if it should incur liability to the listing agent for selling the property during the listing period. As we explain…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Masterson v. SineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Gerdlund v. Electronic Dispensers InternationalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  3. Banco Do Brasil, S.A. v. Latian, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. Alling v. Universal Manufacturing Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
  2. SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
  3. Everett v. State Farm General InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  4. Grey v. American Management ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. Hall v. HarkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

8 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