Legal Opinion
Briley v. Sukoff
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 2, 1979No. Civ. 20601PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THE COURT.
Briley, plaintiff below, appeals from dismissal of his action for want of prosecution within five years of filing the action pursuant to the mandatory dismissal provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (b). The statute requires an “action. . .shall be dismissed by the court. .. unless. . . brought to trial within five years after the plaintiff has filed his action... .”
On appeal, Briley contends the dismissal was erroneous because there was a trial on the merits prior to expiration of the five-year period. He says this case should be controlled by Code…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Weeks v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Brunzell Construction Co. v. WagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Bella Vista Development Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Kadota v. City & County of San FraciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2011
- Misic v. SegarsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- In Re Marriage of DunmoreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Tiholiz v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Dept. of Forestry CA3California Court of Appeal · 2020