Legal Opinion
Gutterman v. Gally
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 9, 1933No. Docket No. 8521PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.
Plaintiff sought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained as the result of a conspiracy to defraud on the part of defendants. Defendants’ demurrers to plaintiff’s second amended complaint were sustained and a motion to strike was granted. Plaintiff was granted 'leave to amend, but declined to do so and judgment of dismissal was entered. From this judgment plaintiff appeals.
The second amended complaint covers twenty-five pages of the transcript and a similar amount of space is covered by the demur,rers and motion to strike. We do not believe it necessary, however, to set forth in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- The Edward Barron Estate Co. v. the Woodruff Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Bancroft v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Paolini v. SulprizioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Hallidie v. EngingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Hammond v. Ocean Shore Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1913
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Keidatz v. AlbanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Hill v. WratherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Nighbert v. First National Bank of BakersfieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Maynes v. Angeles Mesa Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1938
- Church v. ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.