Legal Opinion
Amoco Chemical Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 17, 1995No. B079477PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.
We hold in this case that section 1989 of the Code of Civil Procedure means what it says—a witness is not obliged to appear in court in California unless he is a resident of the state at the time of service. For this reason, a notice to attend trial and bring documents (§ 1987, subds. (b), (c)) served on the custodian of records of a nonresident party is void and unenforceable.
Background
Six lawsuits were filed against Amoco Chemical Company and Amoco Reinforced Plastics Company for damages caused by Amoco’s allegedly defective design and manufacture of “Techite”…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Adams v. MurakamiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Neff v. ErnstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Kellett v. MarvelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Twin Lock, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Baker v. CastaldiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Garcia v. MyllylaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
- I-CA Enterprises v. Palram AmericasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.