§Why CasetextPricing

Demurrer_to_amended_complaint

Demurrer

8 Cited authorities

  1. Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

    155 Cal.App.4th 19 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 135 times
    Holding "[w]e reject the notion that merely because a vehicle provides transportation from point A to point B, it necessarily does not violate the implied warranty of merchantability"

  2. Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc.

    114 Cal.App.4th 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 143 times
    Affirming trial court's ruling "that, where the implied warranty of merchantability is breached, applicable statutes do not require a buyer to give the seller an opportunity to repair before rescinding the purchase" because "there is no requirement the seller be given an opportunity to repair when the implied warranty of merchantability is breached"

  3. Vaillette v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

    18 Cal.App.4th 680 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that leave to amend should not be granted where in all probability, amendment would be futile

  4. Lilienthal Fowler v. Superior Court

    12 Cal.App.4th 1848 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 100 times
    In Lilienthal & Fowler v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1848 (Lilienthal), the Court of Appeal recognized that the Legislature's principal purpose in so narrowing the statute was to "eliminate summary adjudication motions that would not reduce the costs and length of litigation."

  5. Donlen v. Ford Motor Co.

    217 Cal.App.4th 138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 52 times
    Finding such information probative

  6. Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    32 Cal.4th 1246 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 61 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding service contract is not express warranty under Song-Beverly Act

  7. Merlino v. West Coast Macaroni Mfg. Co.

    90 Cal.App.2d 106 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)   Cited 28 times

    Docket No. 13739. February 14, 1949. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. Frank M. Ogden, Judge. Reversed. Action for breach of agreement for division of profits. Judgment for defendants on plaintiff's failure to amend first amended complaint after demurrer thereto was sustained, reversed. Morgan J. Doyle and A. Dal Thomson for Appellant. Matt Goldstein and Lionel B. Benas for Respondents. PETERS, P.J. Defendants demurred generally and specially to plaintiff's first amended

  8. Winchell v. Strawbridge

    204 Cal. 97 (Cal. 1928)

    Docket No. S.F. 12296. April 21, 1928. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George H. Cabaniss, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A.H. Carpenter for Appellant. Maurice R. Carey for Respondents. PRESTON, J. This is an appeal from a judgment for defendants based upon an order sustaining both general and special demurrers to the amended complaint, plaintiff having declined the opportunity offered by the court to amend