Legal Opinion
Filice v. Boccardo
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 17, 1962No. Civ. 20532PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHOEMAKER, J.—
Plaintiff Frank H. Filice appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after defendants’ demurrers were sustained without leave to amend.
This action is one to recover damages allegedly resulting from a fraudulent conspiracy perpetrated by defendants James Boeeardo, Robert Popelka, Doctor W. Henry Harper, Robert Cimino, Elmer Collett, 15 John Does, and 5 Jane Does.
The pleading is most difficult to follow; however, we believe we have fathomed the relevant allegations of the complaint to be as follows: On August 17, 1951, plaintiff was seriously injured when his automobile was…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Bainbridge v. StonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Agnew v. ParksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Schultz v. SteinbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Legg v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Tarasoff v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Goodman v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
- HFH, LTD. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co.California Supreme Court · 1969
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.