Legal Opinion

Gleason v. Fire Protection Engineering Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 30, 1932No. Docket No. 8168PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

A general demurrer filed by respondents to appellant’s second amended complaint was sustained, following which a judgment of dismissal was entered.

According to the complaint, respondent Clifford was doing business under the name of Fire Protection Engineering Co. The Townsend Co., a corporation, which was joined as a defendant, was the owner of a certain building in San Francisco which was leased to Baker, Hamilton and Pacific Co., a corporation. Plaintiff was an employee of the company last named. For some time prior to September 28, 1929, respondents were engaged in repairing a…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Means v. Southern California Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Young v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Gett v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Haddad v. McDowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Katz v. HelbingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Scott v. George A. Fuller Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940
  2. Hamilton v. BoydSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
  3. Dickison v. LaThorpeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Wallace v. KingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  5. Page v. Cudahy Packing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1939

2 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