Legal Opinion

Eichler Homes of San Mateo, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1961No. S. F. 20691PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtScpiauer, J.

— Petitioner seeks mandate to compel the superior court to grant petitioner’s motion to amend a ‘ ‘ Third Amended Complaint” in accord with a proposed “Second Amendment to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.” Respondent court, instead of permitting the amendment in the manner requested by petitioner, granted petitioner leave “to file new and separate cause of action, incorporating the matters involved in the requested amendment.” We have concluded that petitioner has not shown how it could be prejudiced by amending in the manner permitted by the order of respondent court rather than in the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of MedicineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Panos v. Great Western Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Weitzenkorn v. LesserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Tanforan v. TanforanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Dabney v. PhilleoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Baral v. SchnittCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Slater v. BlackwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Boeken v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.California Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Hayes v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013

25 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