Moulton v. Parks
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the judgment and decree of the Tenth District Court, county of Colusa. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
In his complaint plaintiff alleges “that he is ignorant of the true names of the defendants above designated as John Doe and Richard Roe, and therefore has thus designated them, and prays that when their true names are discovered the pleadings and proceedings herein may be amended by inserting such names in the place and stead of the names herein used to designate such defendants.”
The “ defendants ” filed an answer.
The record does not show that the true names of the defendants designated in the complaint as John Doe and Richard Roe have been discovered, nor have the pleadings and proceedings…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. LynchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- People v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Green v. SwiftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by9 opinions
- Larsen v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Davies v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Conniff v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Mulville v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- People v. Van Nuys Lighting DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.