Legal Opinion
Weinstock v. Eissler
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 22, 1964No. Civ. 21181PublishedCited by 74 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his third amended complaint after the court sus tained general demurrers thereto with leave to amend and plaintiff failed to amend. Plaintiff also “appeals from the minute order herein dated September 5, 1962, . . .’,: An order sustaining a demurrer with or without leave to amend is nonappealable and the appeal must be taken from the ensuing judgment. (Carley v. City of Santa Rosa (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 214, 215 [315 P.2d 905]; see also Evans v. Dabney (1951) 37 Cal.2d 758, 759 [235 P.2d 604]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, p. 2162.) The attempted appeal…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of MedicineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Klopstock v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Frost v. WitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by74 opinions
- Blatty v. New York Times Co.California Supreme Court · 1986
- E. L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Association, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1971
- Landeros v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Carman v. AlvordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.