Legal Opinion
Karz v. Karl
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 22, 1982No. Civ. 62163PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POTTER, Acting P. J.
Plaintiff Erwin Karz (hereinafter Karz) appeals from a judgment that he “shall take nothing” from defendants Harry Karl (hereinafter Karl), Debbie Reynolds (aka Mary Frances Karl, hereinafter Reynolds) and Raymax Productions, Inc. (hereinafter Raymax) in Karz’ action for damages for breach of contract, fraud and conversion. The judgment was rendered in a trial department when Karz advised the trial court of his inability to prove essential elements of his case in view of a prior discovery order granting defendants’ motion for sanctions which precluded him from…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Deyo v. KilbourneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Petersen v. City of VallejoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Weinkauf v. Superior Court of Tuolumne CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Scherrer v. Plaza Marina Commercial Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1971
- Shields v. ShieldsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kuhns v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Sauer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- McGinty v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.