Legal Opinion

Norton v. Hines

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 15, 1975No. Civ. 44731PublishedCited by 80 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HASTINGS, J.

The first alleged cause of action of plaintiff Norton’s complaint is for damages for malicious prosecution against Frank Lind (Lind), and the second alleged cause of action thereof is for damages for “professional negligence” by Larry L. Hines, an attorney, and Nordman, Cormany, Hair & Compton, the unincorporated law firm of which Hines is a member (both Hines and the law firm will be identified collectively as “attorneys.”) Attorneys’ general demurrer to the second alleged cause of action of the complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Norton appeals from the order…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Dillon v. LeggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Donald v. GarryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971

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

3Cited by80 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & OlikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Goodman v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Goodley v. Wank & Wank, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1976
  5. Nelson v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1980

75 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