¶1I concur in the judgment of reversal because it is clear, both from the face of the contract and the extrinsic evidence received without objection that defendant’s relation to the transaction was that of surety, and plaintiff’s conduct effected her exoneration.
48 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 9
Wexler v. McLucas
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California
Decided May 1, 1975
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · decided 1975-05-01
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1975-05-01
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1990
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →