Legal Opinion
Timperley v. Chase Collection Service
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 9, 1969No. Civ. 32997PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
— Respondents’ demurrer to the second amended complaint was sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend on the ground that no cause of action was stated. Two months later, when appellant failed to amend, respondents moved to dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 581 subdivision 3. Appellant appeals from the judgment of dismissal that followed and purports to appeal also from the order sustaining the demurrer. The order sustaining the demurrer is a preliminary order that is not separately appealable. (Jeffers v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 107 Cal. App.2d 253, 254 [237 P.2d 51].)
Ees…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Melvin v. ReidCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Brents v. MorganCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927
- Gouldman-Taber Pontiac, Inc. v. ZerbstSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
- Patton v. JacobsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1948
- Locke v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Forsher v. BugliosiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Michael S. Virgil, AKA Mike Virgil v. Time, Inc., a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Newman v. Checkrite California, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 1995
- Kinsey v. MacUrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Emerson v. J. F. Shea Co.California Court of Appeal · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.