Legal Opinion

Foerst v. Hobro

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 24, 1932No. Docket No. 8350PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TUTTLE, J., pro tem.

This was an action to recover damages for an alleged false imprisonment, brought against two inspectors of the department of health of the city and county of San Francisco, one of whom was chief inspector. Demurrers to the original and the first amended complaint were sustained with leave to amend; and the second amended complaint being defective also, the demurrer thereto was sustained without leave to amend. Judgment in favor of defendants was entered accordingly, and plaintiff appeals therefrom.

The complaint alleged that the inspector, acting under instructions from and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fong v. SternesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Burlingame v. TraegerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  3. Going v. DinwiddieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Lapique v. AgoureCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Vallindras v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Kaufman v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Peters v. BigelowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. Muller v. ReaghCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Thompson v. BoyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

4 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