Legal Opinion

Hoban v. Ryan

California Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 1900No. S.F. No. 2305PublishedCited by 19 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, C.

The suit was brought in the justice’s court of the city and county of San Francisco for the unlawful detainer of a lot in that city, and for the recovery of possession and the value of the use and occupation. The case was carried by appeal to the superior court, where judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises and for the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars and costs. The defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.

The complaint alleges that the value of the use and occupation of the premises during the time it was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Dashiell v. SlingerlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  2. Solomon v. ReeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  3. Ballerino v. BigelowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Sanborn v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cty.California Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. AIU Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. HuntCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Redlands High School District v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Schwab v. Rondel Homes, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Hunt v. Check Recovery Systems, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2007

14 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