Legal Opinion
People v. Seneca Insurance
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 25, 2004No. B166414PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PERREN, J.
Seneca Insurance Company (Seneca), a bail surety, seeks relief from an order of bail forfeiture. Notice of the order was given by the trial court as required by law to both the surety and to the agent whose name appears on the bond. (Pen. Code, § 1305, subd. (b).) Seneca sought an extension of the 185-day period in which the defendant could be returned to custody in order to avoid the forfeiture (§ 1305.4), contending that the notice of the forfeiture order was belatedly received by an agent whose name did not appear on the bond. The defendant was returned to custody while…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In Re Marriage of ArceneauxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- In Re Estate of FainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Schnabel v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- People v. Granite State InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- County of Los Angeles v. Fairmont Specialty GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- People v. Ranger InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- People v. MonkCalifornia Superior Court · 2018
- State v. VargasIdaho Court of Appeals · 2005
- People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Company, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.