Gopal v. Yoshikawa
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HANING, J.
Appellant Yoshikawa and respondent Gopal sued each other in separate actions which were consolidated below. Neither the record nor the briefs contain nor discuss the initial pleadings or causes of action, but the cases were settled at a mandatory, judicially supervised settlement conference. The same judge who supervised the settlement conference thereafter granted respondent’s motion to compel enforcement of the settlement and entered judgment thereon.
We conclude that the trial, court properly enforced the agreement of the parties and affirm.
The parties and their attorneys…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Vesely v. SagerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- People v. MerriamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Pianka v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Gregory v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- McClure v. McClureCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Levy v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- In Re Marriage of AssemiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- In Re Estate of BreardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Corkland v. BoscoeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Gorman v. HolteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.