Legal Opinion
Owens Generator Co. v. H. J. Heinz Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided December 10, 1958No. Civ. A. No. 36558PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WOLLENBERG, District Judge.
Both parties construe the complaint as based on fraud. The complaint sets forth a long involved series of transactions which, although preliminary to, are unconnected with the alleged fraudulent act. Each defendant made a motion to dismiss the complaint (1) as the action is barred by the applicable California statute of limitations (Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 338, subd. 4, 343), and (2) for failure to state a cause of action. For purposes of these motions it is only necessary to consider plaintiffs’ allegation that they “have commenced this action within 3 years…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Suckow Borax Mines Consolidated, Inc. v. Borax Consolidated, LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,202 Sundstrand Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Standard Kollsman Industries, Inc., an Illinois CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1973
- Gilbert v. Eli Lilly & Co.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1972
- Fletcher v. WilliamsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1963
- McDonald v. General Mills, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 1974
- Higinio Aponte v. American Surety Company of New York, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.