Farrington v. Brown
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision. The 13 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Dong v. BMW of North America, LLC (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2020)
- Jimenez v. Hyatt Corp. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2025)
- United States of America v. Dynamic Medical Systems, LLC. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2023)
- SuperCom Ltd. v. Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Fund Ltd. (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
- (PC) Delgado v. Lizarraga (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
- M.B. v. County of Butte (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2025)
- Cardenas v. Zurich American Insurance Company (District Court, D. Nevada 2025)
- Rulffes v. Macy's West Stores LLC (District Court, W.D. Washington 2023)
- Estate of Cindy Lou Hill v. Naphcare Inc (District Court, E.D. Washington 2022)
- Jaffee v. Wynn Las Vegas LLC (District Court, D. Nevada 2020)
- Williams v. San Diego, County of (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2019)
- Cirrus Aviation Services, LLC v. Cirrus Design Corporation (District Court, D. Nevada 2019)
- Greer, David AKA David Duane Greer (Tex. App. 2015)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The appeal is from a judgment rendered on failure of plaintiff to amend her complaint, after an order of court sustaining a demurrer thereto, on the ground that the complaint does not state facts constituting a cause of action.
The action is brought to enjoin the defendant Brown, a constable, from selling certain real property of plaintiff under execution, issued upon a judgment rendered and entered by a justice of the peace, in an action wherein plaintiff was defendant, and the present defendant, Beiso, was plaintiff.
There is no averment in the complaint herein that copy of the original complaint filed in the Justices’ Court, as well as copy of summons, was not served on the present plaintiff, nor that copy of the amended complaint in the action in the Justices’ Court was not served on plaintiff, or on Patrick Farrington (first named as a defendant in that action in the amended complaint), nor even that the plaintiff or Patrick did not appear and answer such amended complaint. For aught that appears in the present complaint, the cause was tried in the Justices’ Court, upon the issues made by the amended complaint and the answers thereto of Patrick Farrington and Rosanna Farrington—the plaintiffs herein.
This possibility, or presumption, is not removed by the statement in the present complaint that the plaintiff Rosanna had
Judgment affirmed. •. ,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.