Legal Opinion
Russell v. Douvan
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 30, 2003No. A096261PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CORRIGAN, Acting P. J.
Here we reaffirm the long-standing principle that a prohibitory injunction may not issue unless the court finds there is a threat of future harm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Thomas Douvan and Lance Russell are attorneys who represented opposite sides in a dispute. Russell claimed that after a court appearance Douvan followed him into an elevator and forcefully grabbed his arm. Russell filed a petition for an injunction prohibiting harassment under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.1 Following an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that Douvan…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Department of Social Services v. Ronald P.California Supreme Court · 1981
- Hannah v. PogueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Rosicrucian Fellowship v. Rosicrucian Fellowship Non-Sectarian ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Blake v. City of EurekaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Scripps Health v. MarinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- R.D. v. P.M.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Haley v. Casa Del Rey Homeowners Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Harris v. StampolisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Babalola v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- City of San Jose v. GarbettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.