Legal Opinion

Mickel v. Murphy

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 21, 1957No. Civ. 5535PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMussell, J.

This is a tort action for damages alleged to have been caused by the unlawful practice of law by defendant. A demurrer to the second amended complaint, including by stipulation a general demurrer, was sustained and plaintiff was granted 10 days to file an amended complaint. She de dined to amend and appeals from the judgment thereupon entered against her.

The prindpal question to be here determined is whether the second amended complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It is alleged therein that Henry Mickel, prior to his death on September 4, 1954, was the husband of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Clinkscales v. CarverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Buckley v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. People v. SipperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Coleman v. California Yearly Meeting of Friends ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  5. McKeon v. NeuschwanderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Brammer v. TaylorWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Houts v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar AssociationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1971
  5. Kent v. BartlettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975

2 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