Legal Opinion
Kappel v. Bartlett
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 6, 1988No. B025210PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HANSON, J.
By second amended complaint, plaintiff Karl G. Kappel (plaintiff and/or Kappel) sought both compensatory and punitive damages from defendants Brian Thomas Fecher (Fecher), David Aulden Bartlett (Bartlett), doing business as Attorney Services Systems, a fictitious name (Attorney Services); Attorney Services Systems, Inc., a California corporation, and Does. Plaintiff alleged three causes of action, i.e., (1) perjury; (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (3) negligence.
The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers to the second amended complaint without…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn.California Supreme Court · 1972
- Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
- Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1970
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Rusheen v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Summers v. City of Cathedral CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- McCrary v. Barrack (In Re Barrack)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.