O'Moore v. Driscoll
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
McNUTT, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff (appellant) sued four defendants for damages for false imprisonment, two of whom were impleaded individually. After demurrer to the complaint had been overruled and they had answered, two defendants, Province of the Holy Name, a corporation, and Pius M. Driscoll, as Prior Provincial thereof, moved for judgment on the pleadings and the motion was granted. Appellant assails the procedural propriety of entering judgment on the pleadings after the disallowance of the demurrer. He argues that though the right so to move is clear when the complaint fails to state a…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- French v. SenateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. ThorntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Basabo v. the Salvation Army, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1912
- Armendarez v. Hotel DieuCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Evans v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1880
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic ArchbishopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Higgins v. MaherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Molski v. Arciero Wine GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Snyder v. Evangelical Orthodox ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.