Mix v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a case of first impression regarding the proper standard on which to judge a motion to expunge a notice of lis pendens when the trial court has already substantively rejected the recording party’s claim. Up to 1992, we knew what the standard was. It had been clearly articulated in Peery v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 837 [176 Cal.Rptr. 533, 633 P.2d 198]: If the claimant could show that a substantial issue existed for appeal, the motion to expunge would be denied even though the claimant had already lost at the trial level. (Id. at p. 845.)
The…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Silberg v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- In Re Marriage of ArceneauxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Malcolm v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Bannister v. GoldmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 2008
- AMALGAMATED BANK v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- BEHNIWAL v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- De la Cerra v. Coastline Commercial Capital CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Grimberg v. PourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2026
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.