Legal Opinion
Addiego v. Hill
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 20, 1965No. Civ. 22539PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
Plaintiffs, William B. Addiego and Harry J. Love, appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after a demurrer to their third amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. We are here concerned with the sufficiency "of the third amended complaint to state a cause of action for specific performance of an alleged agreement between the parties.
The complaint alleged that plaintiffs and defendants were the owners of all the 12,000 shares of stock of Bahl Corporation; the plaintiffs owning 5,000 shares or about 42 percent; the defendants 7,000 shares or about 58 percent; that on or about…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Buxbom v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Augustine v. TruccoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Cousins Investment Co. v. Hastings Clothing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1941
- Marin v. JacuzziCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Lee v. HensleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Wal-Noon Corp. v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Frankel v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Ben-Zvi v. Edmar Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Groves v. PrickettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
- Pacific Architects Collaborative v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.