Legal Opinion
Coykendall v. Jackson
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 30, 1936No. Civ. 5651PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
Appellant began this action seeking a declaratory judgment under the provisions of section 1060 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants interposed a demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint, which was sustained by the court without leave to amend. The appellant thereafter made a motion to vacate -the order of the court denying the privilege to amend his complaint, which motion was denied. Judgment was thereafter entered in favor of the defendants. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals.
While ordinarily the court will permit an amendment to a complaint, this action is largely within the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Billesbach v. LarkeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Montgomery v. De PicotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Sumner v. NevinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Walton v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Davidson Investment Co. v. DabneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
- Masterson v. SineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Columbia Pictures Corp. v. DeTothCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- Husain v. Mcdonald's Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.