Legal Opinion
W. A. Rose Co. v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial District
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 9, 1959No. Civ. 18200PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBray, P. J.
Edward R. FitzSimmons, the real party in interest, appeals from an order issuing peremptory writs of prohibition and mandate ordering the clerk of the Municipal Court for the Oakland-Piedmont Judicial District to enter default in the action hereafter mentioned and the court to desist from further proceedings therein.
Question Presented
Are prohibition and mandamus proper remedies where the municipal court attempts to exercise jurisdiction in an action after improper refusal to enter default of defendant and judgment?
Record
December 10, 1956, respondent W. A. Rose Company filed an action in said…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Phelan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Rescue Army v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Rodman v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Estate of KeetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- SUTCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. Modesto High School Dist.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- Juarez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Ursino v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Winzler & Kelly v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- McClain v. Kissler, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.