Legal Opinion

Kronkright v. Gardner

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 21, 1973No. Docket Nos. 40383, 40862PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DUNN, J.

Demurrers to plaintiff’s first amended complaint, separately filed by Philip Gardner and Garth G. Gardner, were sustained without leave to amend on the ground no cause of action was stated against either of them, and orders for the dismissal of each defendant were filed (judgments, Code Civ. Proc., § 581d). Thereafter, plaintiff brought separate motions for new trial as to these defendants. After hearing the motions together on July 16, 1971, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiff’s motion as to Garth Gardner, setting aside its dismissal of him and allowing…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Sutphin v. SpeikCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Stewart v. CoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Price v. Sixth District Agricultural Assn.California Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Carney v. SimmondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Datta v. StaabCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Eichman v. Fotomat Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1983
  2. City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement SystemCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  4. Alhino v. StarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  5. Frommhagen v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987

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

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

Powered by the Exa API