Legal Opinion
Hofer v. Young
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 7, 1995No. C018794PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RAYE, J.
Defendants Lisa and Dan Young accepted plaintiff Jan Ardeene Hofer’s statutory offer to compromise a personal injury action for $11,000 (Code Civ. Proc., § 998; all further section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated) and judgment was taken in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the offer. Plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment, contending the acceptance was not valid because it was sent by facsimile transmission (fax), it was not served, and it was not filed with the court within 35 days. The judgment was vacated and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Poster v. Southern California Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Goodstein v. Bank of San PedroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Drouin v. Fleetwood EnterprisesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Stell v. Jay Hales Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- California State University, Fresno Ass'n v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Peters v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- People v. Superior Court (Gary)California Court of Appeal · 2000
- Fuchino v. Edwards-BuckleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.