Legal Opinion
In Re Whitaker
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 6, 1992No. A057347PublishedCited by 20 opinions
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POCHE, J.
Today, we take one small step to eliminate an obvious waste of judicial resources. We hold that Fred A. Whitaker comes within the statutory definitions of a vexatious litigant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391, subd. (b); statutory references hereafter are to this code.) We further hold that Whitaker, not having been deterred by numerous determinations to the same effect by the Alameda Superior Court, shall henceforth be required to obtain the permission of the presiding judge or justice for any court of this state in which he proposes to commence any litigation.
This matter arose when…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Finnie v. Town of TiburonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- In Re LuckettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Hummel v. First National Bank of NevadaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- City of Bell Gardens v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
3Cited by20 opinions
- Wolfe v. StrankmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Wolfe v. StrankmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Gersh Zavodnik v. Irene HarperIndiana Supreme Court · 2014
- Falcone v. FykeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- In Re BittakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.