Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 331 - 340 of 60499 for quit claim deed/1000.
Search results 331 - 340 of 60499 for quit claim deed/1000.
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
that the Blums did not enter into the deed under a “good faith claim of title.” We therefore affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84993 - 2014-09-15
that the Blums did not enter into the deed under a “good faith claim of title.” We therefore affirm
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=84993 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
possession because they did not enter into the deed taken from Blum’s father based on a “good faith claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84993 - 2012-07-18
possession because they did not enter into the deed taken from Blum’s father based on a “good faith claim
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=84993 - 2012-07-18
Arnold E. Smith v. Douglas G. Slock
, the Slocks claim that Smith does not have "clean hands" because his own parking practices violate the deed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10807 - 2005-03-31
, the Slocks claim that Smith does not have "clean hands" because his own parking practices violate the deed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10807 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
Arnold E. Smith v. Douglas G. Slock
that violated deed restrictions limiting their parking area. After both parties moved the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10807 - 2017-09-20
that violated deed restrictions limiting their parking area. After both parties moved the trial court
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=10807 - 2017-09-20
William Charles Sharp v. Thomas M. Hughes
erred when it concluded that the deeds in this case were unambiguous. Indeed, they claim, the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18163 - 2005-05-16
erred when it concluded that the deeds in this case were unambiguous. Indeed, they claim, the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=18163 - 2005-05-16
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, he claims that his due process rights were violated because the City did not prove scienter, which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=140335 - 2017-09-21
, he claims that his due process rights were violated because the City did not prove scienter, which
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=140335 - 2017-09-21
COURT OF APPEALS
two arguments on his appeal. First, he claims that his due process rights were violated because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140335 - 2015-04-28
two arguments on his appeal. First, he claims that his due process rights were violated because
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=140335 - 2015-04-28
COURT OF APPEALS
, the Rayners submitted an August 20, 2003 quit claim deed by which Reeves and his wife transferred real estate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55400 - 2010-10-12
, the Rayners submitted an August 20, 2003 quit claim deed by which Reeves and his wife transferred real estate
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=55400 - 2010-10-12
[PDF]
NOTICE
, the Rayners submitted an August 20, 2003 quit claim deed by which Reeves and his wife transferred real
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=55400 - 2014-09-15
, the Rayners submitted an August 20, 2003 quit claim deed by which Reeves and his wife transferred real
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=55400 - 2014-09-15
[PDF]
Kaye M. Hughes v. Joseph Terry
deed until 1996. ¶2 Hughes claims a superior interest. She argues that Terry’s sheriff’s deed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15675 - 2017-09-21
deed until 1996. ¶2 Hughes claims a superior interest. She argues that Terry’s sheriff’s deed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=15675 - 2017-09-21