Legal Opinion
Scannell v. County of Riverside
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 29, 1984No. Civ. 29916PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HALDORSEN, J. *
The demurrers of defendants County of Riverside and Southern Pacific Transportation Company to the first amended complaint based upon alleged failures to state causes of action and the bar of the statute of limitations were sustained in the trial court without leave to amend. Plaintiff Rick Raymond Scannell appeals from the judgments of dismissal thereafter entered.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleged causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution against the County of Riverside, Riverside County Sheriff’s…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Jaffe v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Sullivan v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Halberstadt v. . New York Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1909
- White v. TowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Kachig v. BootheCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Esau Awabdy v. City of Adelanto Scott Burnell Ted Hartz Richard Althouse, Michael Sakamoto, Does I-X, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992
- Pulver v. Avco Financial ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Shoemaker v. MyersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Rees v. PNC Bank, N.A.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.