Legal Opinion
Ingram v. Glissman
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 25, 1956No. Civ. 17215PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DRAPER, J. pro tem. *
Defendant United Pacific Insurance Company demurred generally and specially to the amended complaint. The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. The order sustaining the demurrer did not specify the grounds upon which the court based its ruling. Plaintiff declined to amend and, after notice, judgment of dismissal was entered. Plaintiff appeals.
Respondent was the surety upon a bond filed by defendant Glissman, who is not a party to this appeal, as a real estate and business opportunity broker. This bond was not filed until March 7, 1955, although Glissman had acted as…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Metzenbaum v. MetzenbaumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Coover v. CoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Anaheim Union Water Co. v. ParkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hendricks v. OsmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Evarts v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Page v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Totten v. Underwriters at Lloyd's LondonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Moya v. NorthrupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970