Legal Opinion

Au-Yang v. Barton

California Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 1999No. S061703PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

90 Cal.Rptr.2d 227 (1999)

987 P.2d 697

21 Cal.4th 958

Susan AU-YANG, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Neil BARTON et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. S061703.

Supreme Court of California.

November 18, 1999.

Anthony P. David, San Francisco, for Defendants and Appellants.

Franklin Melius Gordon for Plaintiff and Respondent.

KENNARD, J.

Subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 594 (hereafter section 594(a)) prohibits trial of an issue of fact in the absence of a party unless it is first proven that the absent party "has had 15 days' notice of such trial." When a case has been set for trial, with 15…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Weitz v. YankoskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Berri v. RogeroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Capital National Bank v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Sheldon v. LandwehrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Bird v. McGuireCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Grappo v. McMillsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  2. Grappo v. McMillsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API