Legal Opinion

Oppenheimer v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 1, 1951No. Civ. 18034PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VALLÉE, J.

Appeal by plaintiff from (1) a judgment of dismissal entered pursuant to an order sustaining, without leave to amend, the demurrers of the city of Los Angeles, Clemence B. Horrall, V. Fallon, and W. Erskine to the second amended complaint, (2) an order denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment, (3) an order striking plaintiff’s amendment to the second amended complaint, (4) an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum, and (5) an order denying plaintiff’s motion to annul the order quashing the subpoena duces tecum. The foregoing defendants, in the order named, are the city of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Kent v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Collins v. OwensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  3. Kaufman v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  4. Brindamour v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Eby v. WilsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1926

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Dragna v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Miller v. GlassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  3. Larson v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  4. Ponce ex rel. Monzón González v. F. Badrena e Hijos, Inc.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1952
  5. Bryant v. County of MontereyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

13 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