Legal Opinion
City of Cypress v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 20, 1968No. Civ. 8610PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcCABE, P. J.
The order granting the motion to strike portions of the answer to the complaint being non-appealable, the attempted appeal therefrom must be and is hereby ordered dismissed.
The dispute grows out of the purported obligation of the defendant and cross-complainant New Amsterdam Casualty Company to complete certain improvements in a subdivision after the default of the developer of that subdivision to do so, or in the alternative to indemnify the City of Cypress for its failure to do so.
On October 15, 1962, Ball Properties II, a California corporation, obtained the approval by the City of Cypress…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Cone v. Union Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
- Keenan v. DeanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Burke v. Hibernia BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Bagley v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. ShewryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa RosaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Dr. Charles Milo Connick v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America & College Retirement Equities FundCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Security Pacific National Bank v. AdamoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- La Mancha Development Corp. v. SheegogCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.