Legal Opinion

Richards v. Hillside Development Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 15, 1960No. Civ. 18571PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

In this case the court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend to appellants’ first amended complaint for foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. Respondents’ demurrer rested upon the proposition that the complaint showed upon its face that Code of Civil Procedure, section 1198.1, barred the action. This appeal, which lies from the resulting judgment for respondents, is predicated upon three grounds: (1) the section does not preclude the action; (2) the complaint states a cause of action on a common count; and (3) the court should have granted leave to amend. For the reasons which we set out…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Schumm v. BergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Hays v. TempleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  3. Pierce v. MerrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Hughes Brothers v. HooverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
  5. Wells v. California Tomato Juice, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1941

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Dakota Block Co. v. Western Casualty & Surety Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Burt v. Irvine Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
  3. Howard A. Deason & Co. v. Costa Tierra Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1969
  4. Petersen v. W. T. Grant Co.California Court of Appeal · 1974
  5. States Shingle Co. v. KaufmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

7 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