Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Baxter v. Boston-Pacific Oil Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 3, 1927No. Docket No. 5558PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKoford, P. J.

When the demurrer to the complaint came on for hearing in the court below the point was raised that no certificate of counsel was attached to the demurrer as required by Rule 40 of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco. The court thereupon granted defendant leave to file an amended demurrer. The amended demurrer was afterward filed containing the missing certificate. Thereafter a motion was made by plaintiff to strike the amended demurrer upon the ground that the filing of the same was without authority of law. This motion was denied. Thereafter the court heard the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ralston v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Tafft v. Presidio & Ferries RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Pickett v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Hedges v. DamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Sullivan v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Danzansky v. ZimbolistCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  2. Albermont Petroleum, Ltd. v. CunninghamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  3. Ansco Construction Co. v. Ocean View Estates, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. McLellan v. SherwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Eccleston v. GaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API