Legal Opinion

Kelly v. Longan

California Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1936No. S. F. 15363PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

This action is one to recover from respondents actual and exemplary damages for fraud, and for other *275relief. Demurrers to the. amended complaint were sustained, the order not granting leave to amend. Motion to be permitted to file a second amended complaint was denied on the ground, as recited by the court in the judgment, that the proposed amended pleading contained no material allegations not contained in plaintiff’s first amended complaint. The court also found in its' judgment that it appeared in both the first and second amended complaints that plaintiff had actual and full notice and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. ScarboroughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Haley v. Santa Fe Land Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Shapiro v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Davis v. Rite-Lite Sales Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Watson v. Santa Carmelita Mutual Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. Tognazzini v. TognazziniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

8 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