Legal Opinion
Netzley v. Hillstrom
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 4, 1954No. Civ. 4727PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMussell, J.
The complaint in this malpractice action was filed on January 26, 1948. On November 20, 1952, defendants E. N. Hillstrom and C. A. Herrmann filed and served a notice of motion to dismiss the action on the ground that there had been an inexcusable delay of more than two years after the filing of said action in prosecuting the same. This motion was granted on December 5, 1952, and a judgment of dismissal was thereupon entered. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and the principal question involved is whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the action.
It appears from the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Steen v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Raggio v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Barry v. LearnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. LaufferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Jackson v. De BenedettiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Bonelli v. ChandlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Diverco Constructors, Inc. v. WilsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Sprajc v. Scandinavian Airlines System, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- Gunner v. Van Ness GarageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Gray v. FirtheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.