Branson

Branson v. Martin

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 549·56 Cal. App. 4th 300·65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 401·97 Daily Journal DAR 8828·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5471
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 9, 1997B105906California2,763 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nott, J.

Ronald Branson appeals from an order of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of respondents Kevil W. Martin and County of Los Angeles. We affirm.

Standard of Review

On appeal, we are obligated to assume the truth of all facts (but not contentions or conclusions of law) properly pleaded by appellant. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 703 P.2d 58 ].) We also interpret the complaint as a whole, giving it a reasonable interpretation, and making a determination as to whether the facts state the basis of any relief. Further, we will accept the truth of all facts which may logically be inferred from the facts alleged in the complaint. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 339 ].)

Keeping those principles in mind, and casting aside the political rhetoric with which appellant’s pleading is filled, we now examine the complaint.

Facts

Appellant’s complaint consists of an attempt to state six causes of action, several of which have novel titles: “Violation of Statutorily-Created Right under Vehicle Code section 40502(a); Arbitrarily Adjudicating Action and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.