Legal Opinion

Hilltop Properties, Inc. v. State

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 31, 1965No. Civ. 21800PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMolinari, J.

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing its amended complaint after it failed to further amend said complaint to which defendant’s demurrer had been sustained. Plaintiff’s amended complaint purported to state two causes of action, one based on inverse condemnation, the other, on breach of contract predicated upon promissory estoppel. Among the grounds listed in its demurrer, defendant urged the defense of failure to state a cause of action. It was on this ground, as to both causes of action, that the demurrer was sustained.

Questions Presented

1. Does plaintiff’s complaint state a cause…

2Cases cited63 opinions

  1. County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Farrell v. County of PlacerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Pacific Telephone Etc. Co. v. EshlemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Drennan v. Star Paving Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Eachus v. Los Angeles Consolidated Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1894

58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Selby Realty Co. v. City of San BuenaventuraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Klopping v. City of WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Southern California Acoustics Co. v. C. V. Holder, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Textron, Inc. v. WoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
  5. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1997

39 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