Hospelhorn v. Newhoff
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtDoran, J.
Respondents upon rehearing have urged that appellant's brief contains an admission of certain facts, not otherwise appearing upon the face of the record, which show appellant’s cause of action herein to be barred by the limitation of time provided by section 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the original opinion herein (Hospelhorn v. Newhoff, [Cal. App.] 107 Pac. (2d) 956), it was said: “Undisputed statements contained in the briefs indicate that the necessity of enforcing the stockholders’ liability here in question was adjudicated prior to the date alleged in the complaint and more than…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Robinson v. HospelhornCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1935
- Hospelhorn v. DusenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
3Cited by7 opinions
- Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304California Court of Appeal · 1964
- Williams v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- State v. SaundersCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1995
- Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg ProductionsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg ProductionsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.