general demurrer rule in California

2024(See, e.g., Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 502, 522, fn. 9 ; accord, Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 123 [Noting “well accepted principle that against a general demurrer the only requirement is that upon a consideration of all the facts stated it must appear plaintiff is entitled to some relief, notwithstanding that the facts may be inartfully stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to the cause of action”].) “In ruling on a demurrer to a complaint for declaratory relief, doubts regarding th

2021(See, e.g., Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110,123 [recognizing “the well accepted principle that against a general demurrer the only requirement is that upon a consideration of all the facts stated it must appear plaintiff is entitled to some relief” (italics added)].) Here, the trial court expressly found that appellants had failed to allege facts showing Holt’s malfeasance was “perpetrated in furtherance of the joint venture.” We agree.

1971(Weinstock v. Eissler, 224 Cal.App.2d 212, 237 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 537 ]; Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc., 44 Cal.2d 416, 425 [ 282 P.2d 890 ].) The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to overrule the general demurrer and to rule upon the points presented by the special demurrer.

1971(Weinstock v. Eissler, 224 Cal.App.2d 212, 237 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 537 ]; Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc., 44 Cal.2d 416, 425 [ 282 P.2d 890 ].) The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to overrule the general demurrer and to rule upon the points presented by the special demurrer.

2024(See, e.g., Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 502, 522, fn. 9 ; accord, Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 123 [Noting “well accepted principle that against a general demurrer the only requirement is that upon a consideration of all the facts stated it must appear plaintiff is entitled to some relief, notwithstanding that the facts may be inartfully stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to the cause of action”].) “In ruling on a demurrer to a complaint for declaratory relief, doubts regarding th

2024(See, e.g., Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 502, 522, fn. 9 ; accord, Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 123 [Noting “well accepted principle that against a general demurrer the only requirement is that upon a consideration of all the facts stated it must appear plaintiff is entitled to some relief, notwithstanding that the facts may be inartfully stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to the cause of action”].) “In ruling on a demurrer to a complaint for declaratory relief, doubts regarding th

2013Exchange (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1847, 1853 [motion for summary adjudication based on the legal effect of the facts alleged in the complaint “ „in effect operated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion which fulfills the office of a general demurrer to test the complaint‟s sufficiency to state a cause of action;‟ ” see also Pan v. Beverly Hospital, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989 [when moving party filed defective separate statement, court could elect to treat motion for summary judgment as one for judgment on the pleadings].) The legal basis for the defendant‟s argument was set

2013Exchange (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1847, 1853 [motion for summary adjudication based on the legal effect of the facts alleged in the complaint “ „in effect operated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion which fulfills the office of a general demurrer to test the complaint‟s sufficiency to state a cause of action;‟ ” see also Pan v. Beverly Hospital, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989 [when moving party filed defective separate statement, court could elect to treat motion for summary judgment as one for judgment on the pleadings].) The legal basis for the defendant‟s argument was set

1988Since the only possible uncertainty in plaintiffs' amended complaint concerns SoCal's justification for terminating utility services, an uncertainty essential to the cause of action itself, SoCal could rely upon a general demurrer to challenge the complaint. ( Gonzales v. State of California (1977) 68 Cal. App.3d 621, 634 [ 137 Cal. Rptr. 681 ].) [4] Civil Code section 789.3, subdivision (a), prohibits a landlord, acting with the intent to terminate the occupancy of his tenants, from "willfully caus[ing], directly or indirectly, the interruption or termination of any utility service furnished

1988Since the only possible uncertainty in plaintiffs' amended complaint concerns SoCal's justification for terminating utility services, an uncertainty essential to the cause of action itself, SoCal could rely upon a general demurrer to challenge the complaint. ( Gonzales v. State of California (1977) 68 Cal. App.3d 621, 634 [ 137 Cal. Rptr. 681 ].) [4] Civil Code section 789.3, subdivision (a), prohibits a landlord, acting with the intent to terminate the occupancy of his tenants, from "willfully caus[ing], directly or indirectly, the interruption or termination of any utility service furnished

1977(See Budrow v. Wheatcraft, 115 Cal.App.2d 517, 522 [ 252 P.2d 637 ].) The judgment is affirmed.

1977(See Budrow v. Wheatcraft, 115 Cal.App.2d 517, 522 [ 252 P.2d 637 ].) The judgment is affirmed.

1973(Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 549 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 492 P.2d 1137 ].) Applying these principles to the complaint, we conclude that plaintiff has stated a cause of action against the city for a writ of mandate to compel the issuance of a building permit and that, therefore, the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the fifth cause of action.

1973(Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 549 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 492 P.2d 1137 ].) Applying these principles to the complaint, we conclude that plaintiff has stated a cause of action against the city for a writ of mandate to compel the issuance of a building permit and that, therefore, the court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the fifth cause of action.

1971(Weinstock v. Eissler, 224 Cal.App.2d 212, 237 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 537 ]; Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc., 44 Cal.2d 416, 425 [ 282 P.2d 890 ].) The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to overrule the general demurrer and to rule upon the points presented by the special demurrer.

1971(Weinstock v. Eissler, 224 Cal.App.2d 212, 237 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 537 ]; Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc., 44 Cal.2d 416, 425 [ 282 P.2d 890 ].) The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to overrule the general demurrer and to rule upon the points presented by the special demurrer.

1970Bk. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 368, 376 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 381 ].) The judgment of dismissal is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the general demurrer and to rule upon the special demurrer.

1970Bk. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 368, 376 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 381 ].) The judgment of dismissal is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the general demurrer and to rule upon the special demurrer.

1969(Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 416, 425-426 [ 282 P.2d 890 ]; Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of Medicine (1942) 20 Cal.2d 713, 720 [ 128 P.2d 522 , 141 A.L.R. 1358 ]; Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, 104 [ 114 P.2d 1 ].) The judgment of dismissal is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the general demurrer and to rule on the points presented by the special demurrers.

1969(Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 416, 425-426 [ 282 P.2d 890 ]; Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of Medicine (1942) 20 Cal.2d 713, 720 [ 128 P.2d 522 , 141 A.L.R. 1358 ]; Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, 104 [ 114 P.2d 1 ].) The judgment of dismissal is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the general demurrer and to rule on the points presented by the special demurrers.

1969(Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 416, 425-426 [ 282 P.2d 890 ]; Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of Medicine (1942) 20 Cal.2d 713, 720 [ 128 P.2d 522 , 141 A.L.R. 1358 ]; Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, 104 [ 114 P.2d 1 ].) The judgment of dismissal is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the general demurrer and to rule on the points presented by the special demurrers.

1969(Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 416, 425-426 [ 282 P.2d 890 ]; Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of Medicine (1942) 20 Cal.2d 713, 720 [ 128 P.2d 522 , 141 A.L.R. 1358 ]; Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, 104 [ 114 P.2d 1 ].) The judgment of dismissal is reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the general demurrer and to rule on the points presented by the special demurrers.