Legal Opinion

Buffalo Arms, Inc. v. Remler Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 13, 1960No. Civ. 18517PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDuniway, J.

Defendant appeals from a summary judgment. It asserts that its affidavits show certain triable issues of fact, and that therefore the court should not have granted the judgment. We find that the court correctly determined that there was no triable issue of fact, but hold that the judgment should be modified in one respect.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 437e, requires that in the affidavit(s) on motion for summary judgment “the facts . . . shall be set forth with particularity. ...” This section has been on the books since 1933, although its availability in various types of actions has been…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Desny v. WilderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Walsh v. WalshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. California Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Coyne v. KrempelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Masterson v. SineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Snider v. SniderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Saporta v. BarbagelataCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Alling v. Universal Manufacturing Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992

28 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