Legal Opinion

Guyot v. Cassab

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 1, 1931No. Docket No. 600PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

This action was commenced in the court below by the filing of an original complaint on November 16, 1922. John Doe and Richard Roe were named as fictitious parties defendant. After the defendant Cassab Fig and Grape Gardens, a corporation, had answered, an amendment to the complaint was filed on March 29, 1923. This amendment was served on the attorney for this defendant, but not on any other defendant. Mina E. Ballard was not named as a defendant in either the original complaint or the amendment. On March 19, 1925, the plaintiffs filed a notice of motion asking for leave to file an amended…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. DanzigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Harrison v. CousinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  3. Patterson v. RutherfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  4. Clark v. McCainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Salinas v. Riverside Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  2. Sutcliffe v. SutcliffeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Wynecoop v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Kwon v. KwonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Bartholomew v. CrossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940

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

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

Powered by the Exa API