Legal Opinion

Huysman v. Kirsch

California Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1936No. L. A. 14448PublishedCited by 130 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the court after the sustaining of an objection by the defendant to the introduction of any evidence in support of the allegations of the complaint, on the ground that the complaint showed on its face that plaintiffs’ cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, subdivision 3 of section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions of which were affirmatively pleaded by the defendant in his answer.

The action is one for damages against the defendant and respondent, a physician and surgeon, based upon certain acts of alleged…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Marsh v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Akridge v. NobleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
  3. Barnett's Administrator v. BrandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915
  4. Harding v. Liberty Hospital Corp.California Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Kershaw v. TilburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by130 opinions

  1. Comunale v. Traders & General InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Fernandi v. StrullySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
  4. United States Liability Insurance v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Davies v. KrasnaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

125 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