Legal Opinion

Schultz v. Steinberg

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 23, 1960No. Civ. 24281PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RICHARDS, J. pro tem. *

In an action for compensatory and punitive damages for fraud in the inducement of a sale of a coin-operated self-service laundry to the plaintiff, judgment was for defendants. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, from an order dismissing the action as to one defendant which is embodied in the judgment, and from the order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

An order denying a motion for new trial is nonappealable (Code Civ. Proc., § 963; Rodriguez v. Barnett, 52 Cal.2d 154, 156 [338 P.2d 907]) and is reviewable only as a part of an appeal from a judgment (Hamasahi…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Faulkner v. California Toll Bridge AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Nichols v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Ernst v. SearleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Rodriguez v. BarnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Hamasaki v. FlothoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
  2. Goodman v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co.California Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Friendly Village Community Ass'n v. Silva & Hill Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1973
  5. Burt v. Irvine Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965

18 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