California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1574 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Actual fraud is always a question of fact.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1951–2022 · leading case: Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 3d 1127 (E.D. Cal. 2017).
Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 3d 1127 (E.D. Cal. 2017). “”); Cal. Civ. Code § 1574 (“Actual fraud is always a question of fact.”
Guido v. Koopman, 1 Cal. App. 4th 837 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “(Civ. Code, § 1574; Blankenheim v. E. F. Hutton & Co.”
Walter E. Heller W., Inc. v. Tecrim Corp., 196 Cal. App. 3d 149 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987). “334; Civ. Code, § 1574.) In its opposition Tecrim presented evidence which supports an inference of fraud.”
Furla v. Jon Douglas Co., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5915 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “(Civ. Code, § 1574; see Wilbur v. Wilson (1960) 179 Cal.”
Palmquist v. Mercer, 272 P.2d 26 (Cal. 1954). “) Actual fraud is a question of fact (Civ. Code, § 1574); and like any other fact, it may be proved by circumstantial evidence.”
Chesney v. Gresham, 64 Cal. App. 3d 120 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). “Properly viewed, the Legislature is fully within its power to set forth the right or duty in a statute and limit it at the same time in any way it chooses so long as it is not under a constitutional compulsion to leave that right unrestricted.”
Boyd v. Bevilacqua, 247 Cal. App. 2d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966). “The trial judge instructed the jury, inter alia, on actual fraud, giving an instruction in practically the same language as Civil Code section 1572 subdivisions 1, 3, 4 and 5.”
Pearson v. Norton, 230 Cal. App. 2d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964). “Briefly restated, it was found that the Pearsons represented that the Casa Blanca Hotel, and particularly the bathrooms therein, were of the finest construction when in fact it was of cheap construction and many bathrooms contained metal tile rather than ceramic tile; that it…”
Earl v. Saks & Co., 226 P.2d 340 (Cal. 1951). “This misrepresentation, it appears from the undisputed evidence, was made by Saks with knowledge that Barbee insisted on a reduction in price; from this it follows that such misrepresentation must have been made with intent to deceive Barbee and to induce him to buy the coat.”
Mesmer v. White, 264 P.2d 60 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953). “(Civ. Code, §1574.) The finding against the charge of fraud may not be disturbed.”
Cnty. of Santa Cruz v. McLeod, 189 Cal. App. 2d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961). “) “Fraud assumes so many shapes that courts and authors have ever been cautious in attempting to define it.”
Ach v. Finkelstein, 264 Cal. App. 2d 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968). “’ (Civ. Code, §1574.)” (Pearson v. Norton, 230 Cal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.