Legal Opinion

Christensen v. Lucerne Holding Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 19, 1933No. Docket No. 8782PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.

From the record herein it appears that in due course of proceedings had in an action pending in the superior court respective orders were entered in the minutes of the court by which the separate demurrer to the complaint presented by each of the defendants therein was sustained “without leave to amend”; upon which orders a formal judgment was made and entered as to one defendant, on September 13, 1932, and as to the other two defendants, on September 19, 1932; also, that before said judgments were made and entered, a motion presented to the court by the plaintiff for an order to vacate and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Harper v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Cornic v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Ferry v. O'BrienCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  4. Worth v. WittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  5. Sahakian v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gayle v. HammCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  2. City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  3. Murphy v. KendallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Martinsen v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API