Legal Opinion

Kaluzok v. Brisson

California Supreme Court

Decided March 22, 1946No. L. A. 19419PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a change of place of trial.

The action was commenced in Riverside County. The motion was for a change of venue to Los Angeles County] on the ground that the defendants were residents of that county. On the hearing of the motion it was conceded that the individual defendants are residents of Los Angeles County and that the corporate defendant has its principal place of business in that county. However, the real property described in the complaint is situated in Riverside County. The question is whether the action is local (Code Civ. Proc., §…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Hines v. BrodeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Brady v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Palladine v. Imperial Valley Farm Lands Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1924
  4. Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Neet v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Peiser v. MettlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Schaff v. KennellyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Ram's Gate Winery, LLC v. RocheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Metropolitan EngraversCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956

31 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