Legal Opinion

Mary Morgan, Inc. v. Melzark

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1996No. A073240PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

STRANKMAN, P. J.

Summary judgment was granted to defendants when plaintiff failed to present controverting evidence after being granted a continuance for that purpose and instead used the continuance time period to file a request to dismiss the action without prejudice to reasserting the same claims challenged on the summary judgment motions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 437c, subd. (h), 581, subds. (b)(1), (c).) Plaintiff appeals, claiming it was entitled to dismiss the action despite the pendency of the motions and that the dismissal divested the trial court of its power to rule on the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Goldtree v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Sweat v. HollisterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. Herbert Hawkins Realtors, Inc. v. MilheiserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  5. Nazar v. RodefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Kyle v. CarmonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  2. Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. Bahl v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  4. Tire Distributors, Inc. v. CobraeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  5. Cravens v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997

21 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