Legal Opinion
Seidler v. Municipal Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 27, 1993No. B065085PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SPENCER, P. J.
Introduction
Plaintiff Stanley M. Seidler appeals from an order of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend a demurrer to plaintiffs first amended complaint.
Statement of Facts
The facts as alleged in plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which are deemed to be true (Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741, 746 [167 Cal.Rptr. 70, 614 P.2d 728, 12 A.L.R.4th 701]) are as follows: In 1984, the Beverly Hills Municipal Court employed plaintiff as court administrator from a civil service list. While the municipal court was plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Thompson v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- California Manufacturers Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Miller v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Landrum v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Minsky v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Keyes v. BowenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Hill v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Applications of Herrick and IrishHawaii Supreme Court · 1996
- DeCastro West Chodorow & Burns, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- MacKey v. Bristol West Insurance Service of California, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.