Legal Opinion

Bach v. Curry

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 7, 1968No. Civ. 23760; Civ. 24341PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMOLINARl, P. J.

Karl Bach appeals from a judgment dismissing his action with prejudice, pursuant to a previous order sustaining without leave to amend general demurrers to the third and fourth causes of action of plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Plaintiff Maurice Edelstein likewise appeals from a judgment of dismissal of his third cause of action, entered pursuant to a general demurrer that was sustained without leave to amend. Forrest J. Curry and Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company (hereinafter “Curry” and “Penn”) are defendants in each action. Plaintiff Edelstein’s third cause of action is virtually…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. MacLeod v. Tribune Publishing Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias ParishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp.California Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Ruinello v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Marin v. JacuzziCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Blank v. BordenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Steinhebel v. Los Angeles Times CommunicationsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. v. BernardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  4. Buskuhl v. Family Life Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Sciborski v. Pacific Bell DirectoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

3 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