O'Donnell v. Jackson
Citations
- 69 Cal. 622
- 11 P. 251
- 1886 Cal. LEXIS 699
Syllabus
<p>Specific Pebfobmance — Laches — Ejectment. — The plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for the sale of the lands in controversy, and after obtaining possession the defendant objected to the title. • The plaintiff subsequently gave notice that he repudiated the contract, for the reason that the sale was for cash. More than three years thereafter, the plaintiff began this action to recover possession, and the defendant filed a cross-complaint for a specific performance. Held, that the laches of the defendant precluded his right to have the agreement executed.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- applying rule of contract interpretation to language of legislative enactment concerning retirement plan incorporated into contract of employment
- “ ‘the use of plain and unequivocal language in a legislative enactment obviates any necessity for judicial construction’ ”
- “[T]he use of plain and unequivocal language in a legislative enactment obviates any necessity for judicial construction.”
- “[T]he use of plain and unequivocal language in a legislative enactment obviates any necessity for judicial construction.”
- “[T]he use of plain and unequivocal language in a legislative enactment obviates any necessity for judicial construction.”
- action filed for specific performance seeking to recover past-due service retirement benefits
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Thornton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.