Legal Opinion

Richmond Terminal Corp. v. Parr Terminal Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 28, 1931No. Docket No. 7937PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.

Defendants’ demurrers to plaintiff’s second amended complaint were sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff failed to amend after notice and judgment was entered in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appeals upon the judgment-roll.

The complaint in question is entitled “Action for Damages” and covers twenty pages of the transcript. It appears to be drawn upon the theory that a conspiracy existed between the defendants, for it is alleged in various places that defendants conspired to do certain acts. Such allegations are insufficient unless it appears that some right of plaintiff has been violated…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bowman v. WohlkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Moropoulos v. C. H. & O. B. Fuller Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Dowdell v. CarpyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Willman v. FriedmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Menner v. SlaterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Perry v. MeikleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. Coats v. HathornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  3. Bentley v. MountainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Milano v. BulleriCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Herlihy v. WardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

4 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