Legal Opinion

Clark v. Kerby

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 31, 1992No. A052837PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ANDERSON, P. J.

This case raises the question whether the requirements under our former “nonclaim” statute regarding notice to decedent’s creditors comport with the due process standards announced by the United States Supreme Court in Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope (1988) 485 U.S. 478 [99 L.Ed.2d 565, 108 S.Ct. 1340] (hereafter Tulsa). We conclude they do not as to known or reasonably ascertainable creditors. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision to bar the claim of appellant James Edward Clark, Jr., and remand for determination of the factual question: was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Van Ort v. Estate of StanewichCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  2. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. NarulaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Bradley v. BreenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  4. Burgos v. TamulonisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  5. Venturi v. TaylorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995

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

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

Powered by the Exa API