Legal Opinion

Buchanan v. MAXFIELD ENTERPRISES, INC.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 17, 2005No. B174458PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FLIER, J.

The trial court sustained respondent’s demurrer to appellant’s first amended complaint without leave to amend on the ground that the litigation privilege bars the action. We find that the privilege does not apply and remand for additional proceedings.

FACTS

“Although a demurrer makes no binding judicial admissions, it provisionally admits all material issuable facts properly pleaded, unless contrary to law or to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. On the other hand, it does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the challenged…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. LiMandri v. JudkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  2. Rubin v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Kimmel v. GolandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. City of Atascadero v. Merill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
  5. Hagberg v. California Federal Bank FSBCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Urban Habitat Program v. City of PleasantonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Haro v. IbarraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  3. Tisdale v. City of Los AngelesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2009
  4. Agindotan v. Wells Fargo & Co. CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API