Legal Opinion

Goldman v. Simpson

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 20, 2008No. B200082PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WILLHITE, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Orenthal James Simpson appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate the renewal of a money judgment in favor of plaintiff Frederic Goldman. Simpson contends that the renewal of the judgment was void because he had insufficient contacts with California to confer personal jurisdiction when the renewal was entered. We conclude that the trial court properly denied Simpson’s motion to vacate because it was untimely, and because it was based on a ground—insufficient contacts with California to confer personal jurisdiction at the time of the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Armstrong v. ArmstrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Allen v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Maloney v. MaloneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. Pratali v. GatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. FiscusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. In re ZavalaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2014
  4. American Contractors Indemnity Co. v. HernandezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
  5. American Express Centurion Bank v. Silkey CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2021

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

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

Powered by the Exa API