Legal Opinion

Baumann v. Kusian

California Supreme Court

Decided January 23, 1913No. Sac. No. 2010PublishedCited by 28 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.

The demurrers of the defendants and intervener to plaintiffs’ amended complaint, on the ground that the same does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action, having been sustained without leave to amend, judgment was given that plaintiffs take nothing. This is an appeal by plaintiffs from such judgment.

The action is one to obtain a decree declaring the plaintiffs to be the owners of and entitled to receive all the property of one Christiane W. Fischer, deceased, subject to the administration of her estate pending in the superior court of Tehama County, their claim being…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Owens v. McNallyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. McCabe v. HealyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Wright v. WrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Monarco v. Lo GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Blanc v. ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Estate of RollsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Rogers v. SchlotterbackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Monsen v. MonsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

23 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