Legal Opinion

Dabney v. Philleo

California Supreme Court

Decided November 20, 1951No. L. A. 21893; L. A. 21890; L. A. 21891; L. A. 21892PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.

These are consolidated appeals, by plaintiffs Clifford R. Dabney and his wife, in four eases affecting plaintiffs’ asserted interest in certain properties which are inventoried in the estate of Louise E. Dabney, deceased. The trial court sustained demurrers to the various complaints without leave to amend, made orders of dismissal in three cases, and rendered judgment that plaintiffs take nothing in the fourth. The main action (L.A. No. 21893) is against Milton H. Philleo, individually and as executor of the estate of Louise, and others. The amended complaint in that action, according to its…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Bainbridge v. StonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Hammell v. BrittonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Essick v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Ephraim v. Metropolitan Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1946

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. United States Liability Insurance v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Kraus v. Willow Park Public Golf CourseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  3. Stevens v. MarcoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  4. Stansfield v. StarkeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  5. Hartley Pen Co. v. Lindy Pen Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1954

29 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