Legal Opinion

Dreyfuss v. Burton

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 23, 1966No. Civ. 30085PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerndon, J.

Defendants appeal from the judgment entered against them following the granting of respondent’s motion to strike appellants’ answer and for summary judgment. As initially pleaded, respondent’s cause of action was one seeking to collect upon a promissory note of which she alleged that she was a holder in due course. By their answer appellants alleged that respondent was neither a holder in due course nor an assignee for value of the note but merely a sham party created by the true owner of the note in an effort to avoid defenses and the assertion of a counterclaim or setoff existing against…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Eagle Oil & Refining Co. v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Bliss v. California Cooperative ProducersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Benson v. AndrewsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Scheble v. NellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Petersen v. City of VallejoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Hooks v. Southern California Permanente Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. People v. Rath Packing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1974
  4. Walsh v. Glendale Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Jordan v. Canale Foods, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1971

1 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