Muller

Muller v. Coastside County Water District

Good Law
12 Cal. Rptr. 712·191 Cal. App. 2d 511·1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 2083
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 25, 1961Civ. No. 19667California842 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Duniway, J.

Muller appeals in propria persona from a judgment of dismissal entered following the sustaining of *512 a demurrer without leave to amend. The complaint was filed January 20, 1959, and the demurrer on January 23. Thereafter, on January 27, Muller filed “amendments to complaint as of course.” Muller asserts in his brief that, when the demurrer was heard, the court “considered the complaint and its amendments in totality,” and “respondents’ demurrer applied to the complaint and its amendments by understanding in open court.” We consider them in the same way.

The complaint, including the amendments, occupies 42 pages of the clerk’s transcript. It is anything but “A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 426; subd. 2.) Rather, it is a disquisition, apparently written with the aid of a dictionary of synonyms or a thesaurus, upon appellant’s grievances, going back to April 27, 1952, when, as he asserts, he was maliciously prosecuted and falsely arrested and imprisoned on a charge that he had violated Penal Code, section 499, by stealing water from the respondent water district through the means of bypassing its…

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.