Conklin v. Ling

California Court of Appeal

Conklin v. Ling

13 P.2d 749, 125 Cal. App. 44, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 567

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 22, 1932

DocketDocket No. 7455.

StatusPublished

This text of 13 P.2d 749 (Conklin v. Ling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conklin v. Ling, 13 P.2d 749, 125 Cal. App. 44, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinions

*45 CONREY, P. J.

The facts are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Houser. We are all in agreement that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. We of the majority, however, think that the alleged publication of which plaintiff complained was neither libelous on its face nor capable of being given a libelous quality by means of any amendment to the complaint. We therefore are of the opinion that the court very properly dismissed the action without first giving plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint.

There being no argument presented in support of the appeal from order denying motion to strike cost bill, that appeal is deemed to be without merit.

The judgment is affirmed. The order is affirmed.

York, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*45 CONREY, P. J.

The facts are stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Houser. We are all in agreement that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint. We of the majority, however, think that the alleged publication of which plaintiff complained was neither libelous on its face nor capable of being given a libelous quality by means of any amendment to the complaint. We therefore are of the opinion that the court very properly dismissed the action without first giving plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint.

There being no argument presented in support of the appeal from order denying motion to strike cost bill, that appeal is deemed to be without merit.

The judgment is affirmed. The order is affirmed.

York, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 P.2d 749, 125 Cal. App. 44, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conklin-v-ling-calctapp-1932.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack