Burke v. Hibernia Bank
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.
In these two actions appellants, as successors in interest of Thomas Gian and Michael Kane, seek a determination of their asserted rights in The Hibernia Bank. Appellants would fashion a sword of factual issues to pierce respondents’ summary judgments, but the affidavit upon which they rely consists of inadmissible evidence, while respondents’ affidavits state facts sufficient to sustain the judgments.
We analyze in the first instance the complaints; in the second, respondents’ affidavits in support of the summary judgments.
The complaints in these appeals are almost identical; both are framed…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Coyne v. KrempelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Agnew v. ParksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Bennett v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Cone v. Union Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
- Orloff v. Metropolitan Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1941
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Wise v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1963
- Joslin v. Marin Municipal Water DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Snider v. SniderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Larsen v. JohannesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Saporta v. BarbagelataCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.