Agostini v. Strycula
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtSalsman, J.
The trial court sustained a general demurrer to appellant’s first complaint and refused leave to amend. This appeal is from the judgment thereafter entered. We have concluded that the trial court’s action was correct and that the judgment must he affirmed.
Appellant does not contend that his complaint as written states any cause of action. He does assert, however, that given an opportunity, he could amend to state a cause of action. Generally, sustaining a demurrer to a party’s first complaint and refusing leave to amend is unwarranted if there is some probability that the complaint may be…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of MedicineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Imperial Ice Co. v. RossierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Flores v. ArroyoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Chavez v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Mallard v. BoringCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Agis v. Howard Johnson Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
- Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Fletcher v. Western National Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Petyan v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
- Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.