Legal Opinion

Horton v. City of Beverly Hills

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 18, 1968No. Civ. 31336PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFiles, P. J.

This is an action for damages for false arrest brought by plaintiff against the City of Beverly Hills and several individuals. Several of the defendants have filed demands for security for costs, pursuant to Government Code section 951, upon the theory that each of said defendants is an employee of the city, and that his defense is provided by the city.

On February 10, 1966, plaintiff filed a notice of motion for the following relief:

“(1) For an order dismissing the Demand For Filing Undertaking for Costs by plaintiff to Defendant Thomas S. Pierce.
“(2) To reconsider plaintiff’s Motion to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Efron v. KalmanovitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Woodman v. AckermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Yao v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  2. Caruso v. Snap-Tite, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1969
  3. Roston v. EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
  4. Charbonneau v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API