Legal Opinion
Nott v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 30, 1988No. C003754PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
In this writ proceeding we hold that an arbitration hearing is not a “trial,” as that term is used in Code of Civil Procedure section 998, subdivision (b)(3),1 and accordingly conclude that the commencement of the hearing does not terminate an offer to enter a compromise judgment in a civil action. We will issue a peremptory writ directing the respondent court to enter judgment in favor of petitioner, Mary Nott, predicated upon her timely acceptance of an offer from real party in interest Sugar Bowl Corporation (Sugar Bowl).
Facts and Procedural Background
Nott…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Berri v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- REA Enterprises v. California Coastal Zone Conservation CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Woodard v. Southern California Permanente Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wagy v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Hofer v. YoungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Kirkpatrick v. Westamerica BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- People v. HullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. HullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.