Legal Opinion
Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 5, 1993No. A058440PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BENSON, J.
The issue raised by this petition for writ of mandate is whether the trial court may refuse to rule on the merits of a summary adjudication motion made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f), when such an adjudication would not dispose of an entire cause of action because two separate and distinct wrongfiil acts are combined in the same cause of action. We determine that it may not and that the writ should issue.
Petitioners Lilienthal & Fowler et al., are defendants in an action filed by real parties in interest, Rodney Karr and Willard Gersbach,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Friends of Mammoth v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co.California Supreme Court · 1989
- Building Industry Assn. of Southern California, Inc. v. City of CamarilloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- Wiler v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1979
- Eichler Homes of San Mateo, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. v. PaladinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & HarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.