Cornic v. Stewart

Decided November 12, 1918

California Supreme Court · decided 1918-11-12

<p>APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, sustaining a demurrer and refusing leave to amend. Grant Jackson, Judge. Appeal dismissed.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In this case no respondent’s brief has been filed, but a cursory examination of the record discloses that the only appeal before us is an attempted appeal from two orders of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff's first amended complaint and denying the plaintiff’s application for leave to file a second amended complaint. Neither of these orders are appealable orders and there is no appeal from the judgment. It follows that the appeals must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 106 Cal. App. 352 - Sturgeon v. City of Hawthorne

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1918-11-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1987

13 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

¶1In this case no respondent’s brief has been filed, but a cursory examination of the record discloses that the only appeal before us is an attempted appeal from two orders of the trial court sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff’s first amended complaint and denying the plaintiff’s application for leave to file a second amended complaint. Neither of these orders are appealable orders and there is no appeal from the judgment. It follows that the appeals must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

¶2Sloss, J., and Victor E. Shaw, J., pro tem., concurred.