Tu-Vu Drive-In Corp. v. Davies
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBurke, J.
The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint (first amended) without leave to amend, on the ground that the stated causes of action were barred by the one-year statute of limitations found in subdivision 3 of section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgment of dismissal. As will appear, we have concluded that the cited statute does not apply, and that the judgment should be reversed.
Plaintiff operates a drive-in theatre in San Diego. In an action to which plaintiff was not a party, the defendant herein, an attorney, secured a writ of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Rose v. KnappCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- County of Santa Clara v. Hayes Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
- Schaefer v. BerinsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- McFaddin v. H. S. Crocker Co.California Court of Appeal · 1963
- Simons v. EdouardeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Lewis Eisenberg v. Insurance Company of North America, Cigna CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Addison v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
- Collier v. City of PasadenaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Retail Clerks Union Local 648, Afl-Cio v. Hub Pharmacy, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.