Legal Opinion

In Re Grunau

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 30, 2008No. H015871PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

RUSHING, P. J.

Defendant Mark Daniel Grunau seeks recall of the remittitur in this matter on the ground that the 1997 dismissal of his appeal resulted from neglect and misconduct by his appellate attorney, and that relief was not sought sooner because that attorney consistently and plausibly misrepresented the status of the case to defendant through defendant’s father. We initially denied defendant’s motion but were directed by the Supreme Court to reconsider the matter. Having done so, we are persuaded that defendant is entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we will recall the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lockyer v. AndradeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  2. Barbara A. v. John G.California Court of Appeal · 1983
  3. Cox v. DelmasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. In Re SerranoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  5. In Re RothrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re RichardsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. In Re GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  3. Rossi v. Photoglou CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API