Legal Opinion

Martin v. Cinelli

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 4, 1960No. Civ. 18813PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

When a trial court refuses to set aside a default judgment upon a motion under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, this court reviews the record to determine if the court has abused its discretion. We have found no abuse of discretion in the record before us.

The case arose from this background: Respondent brought an action for breach of contract against appellant and three other persons, whose identity were then unknown and who were accordingly designated as First, Second and Third Doe, individually and as “co-partners transacting business under the firm name and style of Cinelli & Co.,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Beard v. BeardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Horton v. HortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Gudarov v. HadjieffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Schwerin v. McCarthyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Randall v. HunterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Oakland Raiders v. NATIONAL FOORBALL LEAGUECalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  2. Morehouse v. WanzoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  3. Morehouse v. WanzoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API