Legal Opinion
Steiner v. Lewallen
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 8, 1966No. Civ. 29150PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J. pro tem. *
We have before us an appeal by the “heirs at law of the above-named decedent” taken from the “Order Nunc Pro Tunc Correcting Order Settling First and Final Account and Decree op Distribution.” We have concluded that the order appealed from amended the decree of distribution as to matters of substantial importance, and that, under the circumstances revealed, a nunc pro tunc order was not authorized.
We quote, first of all, from the portion of the decree of distribution material to this appeal. The asterisks with numbers, in parentheses, we have added for future reference.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Loring v. Town of KingsleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Hardy v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Eckstrom v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Careaga v. CareagaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Bliss v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Severdia v. AlaimoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Eastman v. PetersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968