Legal Opinion

Continental Insurance v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 16, 1928No. Docket No. 4893PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VALENTINE, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal upon the judgment-roll from a judgment of the superior court rendered upon plaintiffs’ refusal to amend their third amended complaint in an action to recover the amount of insurance paid by them for a loss by fire alleged to have been caused by the negligent construction and maintenance of electric wires in the City of Los Angeles.

A general demurrer to the third amended complaint was sustained on the ground that plaintiffs’ claim should have been presented to the board of public service commissioners of the City of Los Angeles before suit was begun,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Farmers & Merchs.' Bank of L.A. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Geimann v. Board of Police Commr's.California Supreme Court · 1910

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Douglass v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Beeson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. Johnson v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. Kline v. San Francisco Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940

16 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