Search results
Aug 11, 2003 · In unlawful detainer actions, tenants generally may assert legal or equitable defenses that “directly relate to the issue of possession and which, if established, would result in the tenant’s retention of the premises.” (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 633.)
law.justia.com · cases · californiaGilardi v. Hallam :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions ...
The trial court found that he intended to claim only the land described in his deed, and this court affirmed the judgment on the ground that in the absence of an intention to claim the land in dispute as his own, his possession was not adverse.
Supreme Court of California. September 2, 1975.] H. B. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ELIZABETH G. JOHNSTON et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. (In Bank. Opinion by Sullivan, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.) [15 Cal. 3d 131] COUNSEL.
We consider constitutional challenges to Civil Code section 789.3, which assesses a penalty of $100 per day against a landlord who wilfully deprives his tenant of utility services for the purpose of evicting the tenant.
Apr 8, 2004 · We granted review to resolve the following issues: (1) whether California must give full faith and credit to the Arizona judgment of dismissal and thus decide, under Arizona law, whether defendant suffered a prior conviction for purposes of California’s three strikes law; and (2) assuming California law applies, 1.
The California Appellate Courts Case Information System provides case information for California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases, including copies of opinions, both published and unpublished. Case information is updated once an hour throughout the business day.
People also ask
Can a good faith improver maintain improvements on the land of the owner?
Can a trier of fact fix a tenant's penalty?
Did defendant evict plaintiff from water & electrical services?
What if a tenant has no utility service?
Although different grounds for legal relief may be asserted under different theories, conduct that violates a single primary right gives rise to only one cause of action.
