TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Roberts v. Western Pacific Railroad

S. ROBERTS v. THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (a Corporation), Defendant FRANK JAMES

Roberts v. Western Pac. R.R., 232 P.2d 563 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 19, 1951
Docket
No. Civ. No. 14631
Judges
Schottky
Citations
232 P.2d 563104 Cal. App. 2d 8141951 Cal. App. LEXIS 1694

Opinion of the Court — Schottky

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

SCHOTTKY, J. pro tem.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff after having sustained the demurrer of defendants J ames and Hatfield without leave to amend. The complaint is the same *815 complaint as the one involved in the appeal of plaintiff from the judgment in favor of defendant Western Pacific Railroad Company (No. 14673) and we refer to the opinion in that case, this day filed (post, p. 816 [ 232 P.2d 560 ]), for a summary of the allegations of the complaint.

In view of what we have decided in ease No. 14673, we believe that the ruling of the trial court sustaining respondents’ demurrer without leave to amend was correct insofar as the complaint seeks relief for reinstatement to his former position and declaratory relief as to the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, but that under the case of Moore v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 312 U.S. 630 [ 61 S.Ct. 754 , 85 L.Ed. 1089 ], the court erred in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend insofar as the asserted cause of action for damages for wrongful discharge is concerned. While the complaint, evidently drawn by plaintiff who is not a lawyer, is inartificially drawn, and no doubt subject to special demurrer, yet as against a general demurrer, a ruling sustaining such a demurrer without leave to amend cannot be upheld.

In view of the foregoing the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint is affirmed insofar as it relates to plaintiff’s asserted cause of action for reinstatement and declaratory relief and reversed insofar as it relates to plaintiff’s asserted cause of action for damages for breach of contract.

Nourse, P. J., and Goodell, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied July 19, 1951, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 16,1951.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1963: 119632026peak 1963 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wise v. Southern Pacific Co.223 Cal. App. 2d 50 (1963)

Most recent

  1. Wise v. Southern Pacific Co.223 Cal. App. 2d 50 (1963)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Moore v. Ill. Cent. R.R., 312 U.S. 630 (1941) 339
Roberts v. Western Pac. R.R., 232 P.2d 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list