ALAMEDA BELT LINE v. CITY OF ALAMEDA

No. A099429.

5 Cal.Rptr.3d 879 (2003)

113 Cal.App.4th 15

ALAMEDA BELT LINE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. The CITY OF ALAMEDA, Defendant and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five.

Review Denied January 28, 2004.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Douglas Y. Dang, Oakland, Dang and Trachuk; Carol A. Korade, City Attorney (Alameda), for Defendant and Appellant.

Benjamin B. Salvaty, Dean E. Dennis, William M. Bitting, and Robert P. Silverstein, Los Angeles, Hill, Farrer & Burrill for Plaintiff and Respondent.


STEVENS, J.

Appellant the City of Alameda contends the trial court improperly held on summary judgment that a repurchase option in a written contract was not sufficiently definite to be enforceable under the statute of frauds. This appeal raises an issue as to whether extrinsic or parol evidence coming into existence after the execution of a written agreement may be considered in order to satisfy the statute of...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases