Legal Opinion
Diepenbrock v. Auslen
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 28, 1960No. Civ. No. 9972PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WARNE, J., pro tem.*
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a change of venue to the city and county of San Francisco, appellant’s residence, in an action praying for declaratory relief filed in Sacramento County.
The complaint alleges that the defendant, Harry Auslen, who was coadministrator of the estate of Harry Auslender, deceased, employed the law firm of Devlin, Diepenbrock & Wnlff, to act as attorneys for him in connection with problems confronting him in the estate of said deceased. It is alleged that said employment was set forth in a letter dated December 15, 1954,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Goossen v. CliftonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Dawson v. GoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Hutchinson v. DowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Gas Appliance Sales Co. v. W. B. Bastian Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Turner v. SimpsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Archer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Braunstein v. Superior Court of Monterey CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Maxwell v. MurrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Emo v. MassaeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Wheeler v. MoschettiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961