Legal Opinion
Smith v. Royal Ins.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided November 27, 1937No. 8474PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEALY, Circuit Judge.
This case was before us on a former appeal, Royal Insurance Company v. Smith (C.C.A.) 77 F.2d 157. It was there held that the demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained because of insufficient facts, and the cause was reversed with leave to the plaintiff to amend. Subsequently the plaintiff, who is appellant here, three times amended his pleading. A demurrer to his third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend, and he appeals.*
Essentially, his third pleading alleges that in the year 1884 one Keil, his predecessor in interest, erected on the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Morrill v. Mackman.Michigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Shaw v. CaldwellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- City of Ironton v. Harrison Const. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Letta v. Cincinnati Iron & Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922
- Lummer v. UnruhCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Dickinson v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Smith v. Royal Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
- Iob v. Los Angeles Brewing Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- Miller v. New Jersey Insurance Underwriting Ass'nSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Smith v. Royal Ins.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1942
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.