Legal Opinion
Nanny v. Ruby Lighting Corp.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 29, 1952No. Civ. 14785PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.
This is an appeal from an order granting a motion for change of venue.
The action was filed in San Francisco. The complaint fails to state the principal or any place of business of the corporate defendant, and fails to allege where the contract was made, where it was to be performed, where the obligation or liability arose,' or where the breach occurred. If the defendant’s principal place of business was other than San Francisco, it is quite apparent that either under article XII, section 16 of the Constitution, or under the provisions of section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure (assuming…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Cook v. PendergastCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Estate of SchluttigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Goossen v. CliftonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Pascoe v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Grimes v. NicholsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
- Banerian v. O'MALLEYCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Superior Strut & Hanger Co. v. Port of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Vind v. Asamblea Apostolica De La Fe en Christo JesusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.