Legal Opinion
Estate of Peebles
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 14, 1972No. 39198PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Plaintiff appeals from an order of dismissal (judgment, Code Civ. Proc., § 581d) entered following an order sustaining a general demurrer to plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend. The demurrer was sustained on the sole ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.1
The complaint was filed February 27, 1970, and contained four causes of action. In the first, plaintiff alleged her appointment on or about September 17, 1965, as administratrix-with-the-will-annexed of the estate of Wade Peebles, deceased; prior to his death, Peebles and the defendants orally agreed…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Jefferson v. J. E. French Co.California Supreme Court · 1960
- St. James Church of Christ Holiness v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Wrightson v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Hays v. TempleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Cotten v. Perishable Air ConditionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bank of California v. ConnollyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Stutz Motor Car of America, Inc. v. Reebok International, Ltd.District Court, C.D. California · 1995
- Glue-Fold, Inc. v. Slautterback Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2000
- Taplett v. KhelaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1991
- Shah v. HealthPlus, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.