Legal Opinion
Taliaferro v. Hoogs
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 16, 1965No. Civ. 22218PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
This is an appeal by Eugene A. Taliaferro from a judgment dated March 17, 1964, dismissing his cross-complaint as to respondent Hoogs. The dismissal was based on appellant’s failure to provide security pursuant to the so-called vexatious litigant statute (Title 3A, Code Civ. Proc., §§ 391-391.6). In this case of first impression, appellant argues that the judgment of dismissal must be reversed because: (1) the statute adopted in 1963 (Stats. 1963, ch. 1471, § 1) is unconstitutional, and (2) even if constitutional, there was no evidence that he was a vexatious litigant as defined by the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Professional Fire Fighters, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Carpenter v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Werner v. Southern California Associated NewpapersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- In Re the Guardianship of CoburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- People v. AmorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Canavin v. Pacific Southwest AirlinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Shalant v. GirardiCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Burton H. Wolfe v. Ronald M. George, Chief Justice Deborah SilvaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- 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
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.