Legal Opinion

Haumeder v. Lipsett

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 16, 1949No. Civ. 13919PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.

A motion by defendants for a summary judgment based on the amended and supplemental complaint, the answer and counterclaim and affidavits, was granted. While plaintiff’s notice of appeal, headed “Notice of Appeal by Plaintiff Hans Haumeder from Summary Judgment,” reads that the appeal is “from the order entered herein ... on the 27th day of April, 1948, granting the Motion of defendants . . . for Summary Judgment, ’ ’ and while such an order, if made, would not be appealable, an examination of the clerk’s transcript shows that the “order” appealed from was, in fact, the summary judgment, and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Seymour v. OelrichsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Walsh v. WalshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Gravenhorst v. . ZimmermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  5. Pearsall v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Albermont Petroleum, Ltd. v. CunninghamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Weichman v. VetriCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Wagner v. ShaponaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. Chilson v. P. G. IndustriesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. Colvig v. KSFOCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

2 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