Legal Opinion

Amarel v. Connell

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 15, 1988No. C000557PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EVANS, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants’ demurrer to the second amended complaint. The question presented is whether causes of action asserted under state law for anticompetitive practices impermissibly intrude upon the federal domain in foreign relations and foreign commerce when the alleged unlawful practices incidentally involve trade with a foreign nation. We conclude they do not and shall reverse the judgment.

I

We begin with the settled principle that a demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Maryland v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Freeman Industries, LLC v. Eastman Chemical Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Berman v. BrombergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  3. Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. Turnbull & Turnbull v. Ara Transportation, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
  5. 216 Sutter Bay Associates v. County of SutterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997

8 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