Legal Opinion

HINSHAW, WINKLER, DRAA, MARSH v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 2, 1996No. H015185PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WUNDERLICH, J.

The Hinshaw law firm petitions for a writ of mandate/ prohibition regarding the trial court’s order permitting discovery of the confidential settlement in a doctors’ class action suit against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kaiser). The underlying action, brought by plaintiffs and real parties Doctors Kauffman and Chronister, is legal malpractice against Hinshaw for dropping them from the case before it settled. Because we find the material sought is protected by the right to privacy, we will grant the petition.

Statement of Facts

This writ petition arises out of an action for…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. White v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. In Re LifschutzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Rizzo v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Ralph W. Moores, Jr. v. Nathan Greenberg, Ralph W. Moores, Jr. v. Nathan GreenbergCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
  5. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  3. Monster Energy Company v. SchechterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  4. Filbin v. FitzgeraldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. Rancho Publications v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

6 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