Epley v. Hiller

5 Citing cases

  1. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Jioras

    24 Cal.App.4th 1619 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that the insured failed to meet its burden where the insurer had reserved its rights to assert coverage defenses

    (Corp. Code, ยง 15035, subd. (1)(b)II.) It was the former partners' burden to prove the notice was published ( Epley v. Hiller (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 100, 104 [ 274 P.2d 696]), and no such evidence was produced below. There was evidence the money from the sale was "divided," but no evidence of when this occurred.

  2. Natl. Farm Workers Service Center v. M. Caratan

    146 Cal.App.3d 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 29 times
    Finding waiver of a right to arbitrate by a party that failed to invoke it in a timely manner after its opponent filed its complaint

    This court is required to uphold such a reasonable inference. ( Epley v. Hiller (1954) 128 Cal.App.2d 100, 104 [ 274 P.2d 696].) Rabinowitch v. Cal. Western Gas Co. (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 150 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 1] establishes this point.

  3. Credit Bureaus of Merced County v. Shipman

    167 Cal.App.2d 673 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 4 times

    [3] The burden is on a defendant relying on dissolution to prove notice of dissolution. ( Epley v. Hiller, 128 Cal.App.2d 100 [ 274 P.2d 696].) [4a] Appellant cannot rely on the provisions of section 15035.5 of the Corporations Code to show actual knowledge.

  4. Marsh Wall Products, Inc. v. Henry

    162 Cal.App.2d 371 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 5 times
    In Marsh Wall Products, Inc. v. Henry Marcus Bldg. Specialties (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 371, one of the defendant's arguments on appeal was that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike out all testimony on the plaintiff's claim for open book account.

    The burden of proving that plaintiff had such knowledge was on Altman. (See Epley v. Hiller, 128 Cal.App.2d 100, 103-104 [ 274 P.2d 696].) The findings were to the effect that Altman had not carried the burden of such proof.

  5. Taylor Oil Co. v. Giordano

    210 N.J. Super. 159 (App. Div. 1986)   Cited 2 times

    It is thus evident that if Giordano, Sr.'s individual proprietorship with which plaintiff had intitiated its business relationship had been a partnership, Giordano, Sr. would have remained liable pursuant to the Act since plaintiff had neither knowledge nor notice as therein defined. See, e.g., so applying state provisions corresponding to the Uniform Partnership Act, 6 U.L.A. ยงยง 3, 35 (1969), Credit Bureaus of Merced County, Inc. v. Shipman, 167 Cal.App.2d 673, 676-79, 334 P.2d 1036, 1039-1040 (Dist.Ct.App. 1959); Epley v. Hiller, 128 Cal. App.2d 100, 103, 274 P.2d 696, 698 (Dist.Ct.App. 1954); Kaydee Sales Corp. v. Feldman, 14 Misc.2d 793, 795, 183 N.Y.S.2d 151, 154 (Sup.Ct. 1958); Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Wofford, 296 P.2d 967, 970 (Okla. 1956); Johnson Tire Co. v. Maddux, 188 Tenn. 626, 627-628, 221 S.W.2d 948, 948-949 (1949); Letellier-Phillips, supra, 32 Tenn.App. at 150, 222 S.W.2d at 48.