Legal Opinion

Ellerhorst v. Blankman

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 21, 1929No. Docket Nos. 7009, 7123PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, J.

Plaintiffs sued for damages on a complaint charging mismanagement of the affairs of a corporation in which they were stockholders. But two of the defendants— Curry and McKannay—were served with process. Their demurrer to the complaint was sustained. An amended complaint was filed. Their demurrer to this complaint was also sustained. A second amended complaint was then filed. Their demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and judgment was entered for these defendants. Thereafter plaintiffs moved under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to further amend. Their motion was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stewart v. DouglassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Dukes v. KelloggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Etienne v. KendallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Loeffler v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Utz v. AureguyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Bagley v. International Harvester Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Whitson v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Robinson v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  5. Sousa v. Capital Co.California Court of Appeal · 1963

2 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