Legal Opinion · Dissent

Henriksen v. City of Rialto

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 14, 1993No. E008993Published

1DissentTimlin, J.

I respectfully dissent.

I

Introduction

The issue here is simple: did Rialto, as the moving party on a motion for summary judgment (motion) and despite the contents of Henriksen’s opposition to that motion, establish, as a matter of law, that Henriksen was not *1623acting within the scope of his employment by Rialto at the time Henriksen’s service pistol discharged and the round hit Masotto, so as to defeat Henriksen’s cross-complaint for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and breach of contract against Rialto?

In my opinion, Rialto did not. Henriksen’s opposition to the motion…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Mary M. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1975
  4. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Sprague v. Equifax, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1985

13 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