Vaughn v. Coccimiglio
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtDraper, P. J.
Defendants answered ready when the case was called for trial. No evidence was introduced. Nonetheless, the court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendants appeal. The judgment is based upon an erroneous application of the presumption that “evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1963, subd. 5).
Plaintiff’s verified complaint sought judgment setting aside alleged fraudulent conveyances by her judgment debtor to his codefendants. Verified answer denied essential allegations of the complaint. When the case…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. AshleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Girvetz v. Boys' Market, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Ross v. WellmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hosford v. HenryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Tinsley v. BauerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mesnick v. CatonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. Vanetik, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- People v. ZavalaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Farmers & Merchants Trust Co. v. VanetikCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
- Jaime v. CarMax Auto Superstores Cal., LLC CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2020
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.