Cal. · Supreme Court opinion · July 20, 1978
Related by Seller ProceedsCourt record Supreme Court opinion
Lattin v. Gillette — California Supreme Court
California Supreme Court · 95 Cal. 317
AmountNot statedAmount not stated in reviewed source.
ResultSupreme Court opinionCourt ruling
HingeSeller ProceedsFoundational limitations rule cited in Howard, Shumaker, and Amen — distinguishes writings that create liability from writings that only evidence a breach of an earlier oral duty.
SourceCourt opinionPublished opinion
File-record question
Foundational limitations rule cited in Howard, Shumaker, and Amen — distinguishes writings that create liability from writings that only evidence a breach of an earlier oral duty.
Limit before takeaway
Published Supreme Court opinion only. Howard v. Security Title Ins. & Guar. Co. (1937) 20 Cal.App.2d 226 (supporting link) applied Lattin to escrow instruction suits.
- Court / region
- Cal.
- Case number
- 95 Cal. 317
- Filed
- January 1, 1891
- Source record
- Court opinion
- Procedural posture
- Supreme Court opinion
- Money movement stage
- Seller proceeds stage
- Record gap
- Payee gap
- Strongest reviewed source
- Published opinion
- Allegation / finding status
- Court ruling
- Disposition
- Supreme Court opinion
- Last posture checked
- 2026-05-31
- Reviewed
- 2026-05-31
What happened
Court held a written title certificate given after an oral employment agreement is evidence of breach, not the written contract itself, so the shorter limitations period applies to the underlying oral agency duty.
What it hinged on
Seller Proceeds. Foundational limitations rule cited in Howard, Shumaker, and Amen — distinguishes writings that create liability from writings that only evidence a breach of an earlier oral duty.
Amount involved
Amount not stated in reviewed source.
Result
Supreme Court opinion
Why this belongs here
Foundational limitations rule cited in Howard, Shumaker, and Amen — distinguishes writings that create liability from writings that only evidence a breach of an earlier oral duty.
Documents to inspect
- Seller instructions
- Authorization request
- Callback log
- Wire confirmation
- Closing statement
- Escrow instructions
This list is inferred from the topic pattern, not asserted as an extracted document list for this case.
What the file needed to show
Current reviewed metadata frames the file issue this way:
Foundational limitations rule cited in Howard, Shumaker, and Amen — distinguishes writings that create liability from writings that only evidence a breach of an earlier oral duty.
Timeline
FiledJanuary 1, 1891
Posture checked2026-05-31
Reviewed for Escrow Cases2026-05-31
Topics
Related patterns
Related records are selected from shared topics, hinge category, court type, and posture. They are discovery aids, not claims that the facts or results match.
Continue research
Open a related reviewed-record search or save this trail when the file-record question is worth revisiting.
Source record
What this record does not show
This reviewed record does not show a court finding that any company or person did anything wrong unless the linked source expressly says so. Read the primary source for allegations, posture, and outcome.
Limit: Published Supreme Court opinion only. Howard v. Security Title Ins. & Guar. Co. (1937) 20 Cal.App.2d 226 (supporting link) applied Lattin to escrow instruction suits.
Reviewed California court records with source links. Allegations are not findings.