Tokerud v. Capitolbank Sacramento
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PUGLIA, P. J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after he failed to furnish security as ordered by the superior court pursuant to the vexatious litigant statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 391 et seq.; further statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Plaintiff contends the finding he is a vexatious litigant is not supported by the record. We affirm. In the published part of this opinion we conclude that an action voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff without prejudice was thereby “finally determined adversely” to plaintiff…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
- Berri v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Villa v. ColeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Cook v. Stewart McKee & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
- Planned Protective Services, Inc. v. GortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Bravo v. IsmajCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Tom Retzlaff v. Go America Communications Corporation, Aaron David Dubrinski, and John and/or Jane Doe, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2011
- S. B. Beach Properties v. BertiCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Fink v. ShemtovCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Garcia v. LaceyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.