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.)
Brace. The Supreme Court answered a question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding which presumption governs the characterization of joint tenancy property in a dispute between a couple and the bankruptcy trustee of one of the spouses.
Searches related to define tenant of faith in legal services california supreme court
law.justia.com · cases · californiaGilardi v. Hallam :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions ...
Gilardi v. Hallam. Annotate this Case. [S.F. No. 24325. Supreme Court of California. December 3, 1981.] RICHARD L. GILARDI et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. GARY L. HALLAM et al., Defendants and Appellants. (Opinion by Broussard, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.)
Plaintiffs Lisa Granberry et al. are a class of approximately 10,000 former tenants of defendants Islay Investments and its managing partner Marvin Trevillian (hereafter collectively the landlord). The class members were tenants of the landlord between 1978 and 1981.
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.
- 202KB
- 18
There, a tenant and her boyfriend (collectively, Chinn) sued a property management company and the property owner (collectively, KMR), alleging breach of a duty of care to provide for the safety of their tenants.
People also ask
What happens if a landlord retains a security in bad faith?
Which presumption governs joint tenancy property in a divorce?
Can a good faith improver maintain improvements on the land of the owner?
Does joint tenancy property defeat the right of survivorship?
Apr 1, 2023 · However, this Note explains how a recent landmark ruling by the California Supreme Court has confirmed a novel legal theory that broadly empowers consumers—including debtors—to assert unconscionability under the State’s Unfair Competition Law.
