Legal Opinion

Capehart v. Heady

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 2, 1962No. Civ. 20179PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBray, P. J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon an order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend to plaintiff’s second amended complaint, presenting as the sole question whether the limitation provided in the lease for bringing an action is, as a matter of law, unreasonable. Defendant demurred to the second amended complaint on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action in that it appeared that the alleged cause of action was barred by the provisions of the lease upon which it was based. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.

Record

The second amended…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Beeson v. SchlossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Tebbets v. Fidelity and Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Frankini v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  4. Ward v. System Auto Parks & Garages, Inc.Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1957
  5. Ward v. System Auto Etc. GaragesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Feldman v. Google, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. American Medical International, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Amir Soltani Amir Dowlatshahi Ruben R. Vega Abdul K. Kabir v. Western & Southern Life Insurance Company, a Corporation, OpinionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  4. Moreno v. SanchezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
  5. Charnay v. CobertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006

13 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