Haldane v. Freedman
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtLillie, J.
Plaintiffs—minors, by their guardian ad litem, declined to amend their complaint within the time allowed after a demurrer thereto had been sustained; according to the caption of the pleading, the action is for damages for “Malpractice, Wilful and Malicious Injury to Plaintiffs’ Property Interests.” Judgment of dismissal was thereupon entered, and plaintiffs have appealed.
The principal defendants are certain attorneys in Los An. geles and elsewhere in California. The demurrer in question was interposed by Mr. Freedman only—it does not appear that the remaining defendants ever appeared,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Biakanja v. IrvingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Greenstone v. Claretian Theological SeminaryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Hoeft v. Supreme Lodge Knights of HonorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Modica v. CristCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mason v. Levy & Van BourgCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Gardner v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Victor v. GoldmanNew York Supreme Court · 1973
- Haldane v. BogyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Mitzel, et al. v. Vogel Law Firm, et al.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2024
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.