California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Easton v. Strassburger, 152 Cal.App.3d 90, 199 Cal.Rptr. 383 (Cal. App. 1984):
Before reaching the merits of this argument we must preliminarily address a related procedural matter. Although the trial judge entered judgment in favor of respondents as against all defendants, the judge failed to enter judgment on appellant's cross-complaint for indemnification. Since the judgment failed to address the cross-complaint it is not an appealable final judgment. (Tsarnas v. Bailey (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 332, 337, 3 Cal.Rptr. 629.) We are constrained to note, however, that the special verdict of the jury and the rule of law expressed by the judge regarding the effect of a finding of "active" negligence leads inescapably to the conclusion that the judgment would have denied recovery to appellant had it been properly rendered on appellant's cross-complaint.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.