Legal Opinion
Rose v. Dunk-Harbison Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 12, 1935No. Civ. 9230PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHINN, J., pro tem.
The court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint without leave to amend, and entered judgment of dismissal, from which plaintiff prosecutes this appeal. Numerous points were raised by the demurrer, and argument thereon is presented at length in the briefs of counsel. One of the grounds of demurrer was that the action is barred by the provisions of section 338, subdivision 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and this defense, we think, is good, and sufficient to support the judgment appealed from.
The action is to recover the value of certain corporate…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lightner Mining Co. v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Bell v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Lambert v. McKenzieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Latta v. TuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Medley v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Pashley v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Bennett v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Scafidi v. Western Loan & Building Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
- Collins v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Sonbergh v. MacQuarrieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.