Legal Opinion
Armstrong v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 13, 1956No. Civ. 21920PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NOURSE (Paul), J. pro tem. *
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate pursuant to section 416.3, Code of Civil Procedure, requiring respondent court to issue an order quashing the service of summons on petitioner in an action brought by one Dolginer to recover damages for personal injury.
Dolginer’s action was commenced on December 8, 1954. The complaint named as defendants one Stover and Doe One and Doe Two. By paragraph I of the complaint it is alleged “That the defendants Doe One and Doe Two are fictitious, their true names being unknown to plaintiff and when the same are ascertained, leave of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Judson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Gates v. Wendling Nathan Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
- Hernandez v. National Dairy Products Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
- Stanley v. KawakamiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
3Cited by16 opinions
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Sparks Construction, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- Dieckmann v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Johnson v. ClarkMontana Supreme Court · 1957
- Cmty. Redevelopment Agency of L.A. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- Josephson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.