Legal Opinion
Iram Enterprises v. Veditz
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 16, 1981No. Civ. 61648PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LILLIE, Acting P. J.
Plaintiffs appeal from judgment of dismissal entered after demurrer to their first amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend.
The defendants in this action are five individuals and a corporation (Highlands Insurance Company). The first amended complaint contains three causes of action. The first cause of action (malicious prosecution, against the individual defendants) alleges: in March 1978 plaintiff Iram Enterprises owned real property in Malibu (hereinafter subject realty) and hired plaintiff Robert McCahon to construct a single-family residence…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
- Buford v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Clark Equipment Co. v. WheatCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Ion Equipment Corp. v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Javor v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Joslin v. H.A.S. Insurance BrokerageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Hogen v. Valley HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Zurich Insurance v. PetersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Sade Shoe Co. v. Oschin & SnyderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Covell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984