Cole v. Rush
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Katzenstein v. Chabad of Poway (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
- Ricard v. Grobstein, Goldman, Stevenson, Siegel, LeVine & Mangel (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)
- Zappas v. King Williams Press, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)
- Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (Cal. 1967)
- People Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Works v. Clausen (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)
- Custodio v. Bauer (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)
- Galanis v. Mercury Internat. Ins. Underwriters (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)
- Bledsoe v. Informative Research (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)
- Russ v. Stiller (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)
- Hohn v. Hohn (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)
- West v. Cranmer (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)
- Curnutt v. Holk (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)
- Brown v. Mayor and City Council (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
- Brown v. Mayor of Redlands (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
- Lavine v. Jessup (Cal. 1957)
- Carley v. City of Santa Rosa (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
- Futlick v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
- Rupley v. Winkler (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
- Berri v. Superior Court (Cal. 1955)
- Taliaferro v. Wampler (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)
- Fregoso v. Eat Club CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)
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
DOROTHEA COLE et al., Appellants,
v.
PAUL RUSH et al., Defendants; FRANK VAN STONE, Respondent.
Supreme Court of California. In Bank.
John C. Stevenson and Lionel Richman for Appellants.
Parker, Stanbury, Reese & McGee and A. P. G. Steffes for Respondent.
THE COURT.
[1] This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. Such an order is nonappealable (Evans v. Dabney (1951), 37 Cal.2d 758, 759 [235 P.2d 604], and authorities there cited; 3 Cal.Jur.2d 476), and this court must, therefore, dismiss the appeal of its own motion. (Collins v. Corse (1936), 8 Cal.2d 123, 124 [64 P.2d 137]; Estate of Brady (1948), 32 Cal.2d 478, 480 [196 P.2d 881]; Rosenberg v. Knesboro (1947), 80 Cal.App.2d 36, 38 [180 P.2d 750]; see, also, 4 Cal.Jur.2d 337, and cases there cited.)
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.