Legal Opinion
Lamb v. Ward
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 21, 1950No. Civ. 18059PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.
A demurrer both general and special having been sustained to their fourth amended complaint the court adjudged that “plaintiffs take nothing by this action” and that defendants recover their costs. The appeal is from such judgment. A reversal is demanded on the grounds that the judgment is uncertain and that the complaint states a single cause of action.
The pleading asserts claims against 38 defendants. Four of these are subsisting corporations; three are fictitious names of corporations; two are actual partnerships; three are partnerships designated by fictitious names; twenty-one are…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Burns v. RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Bedford Investment Co. v. FolbCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Wood, Curtis Co. v. Missouri Etc. Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego Flume Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Extension Oil Co. v. Richfield Oil Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1942
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Igna v. City of Baldwin ParkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Whitson v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Kronsberg v. Milton J. Wershow Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
- Lamb v. WardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953