Legal Opinion
Fairfield v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 3, 1966No. Civ. 30901PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McCOY, J. pro tem. *
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate requiring the Superior Court for Los Angeles County to vacate that part of its order of July 22, 1966, which imposes sanctions against him. It appearing to us that the order was corrected nunc pro tunc by an order of the trial court on August 11, 1966, we issued an alternative writ requiring the trial court to vacate or modify its order as corrected insofar as it imposed sanctions against petitioner, or to show cause why it had not done so.
At all times material here petitioner was attorney of record in the trial court for the defendants…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Coy v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Oil Workers International Union v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Lund v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Carlson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
- Bauguess v. PaineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Deyo v. KilbourneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Rosato v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- NEC Electronics Inc. v. HurtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.