Legal Opinion

Gomez v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 23, 1933No. Docket No. 9056PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.

It appears that petitioner, who represents himself as “an indigent person”, is the plaintiff! in an action pending in the Superior Court oi the County of Los Angeles, and that heretofore his application to said court to the effect that he be permitted “to further prosecute” his said action in forma pauperis was denied for the sole reason (which is conceded to be the fact) that the attorney who represents the plaintiff in said action “has a contingent interest therein”. Petitioner now seeks from this court a mandate by which the said superior court and a désignated judge thereof shall be…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Martin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Luco v. De ToroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Howell v. BuddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Tracy v. RingoleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. Hoffman v. VallejoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Isrin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  2. County of Sutter v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  3. Braden v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1955
  4. Emerson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  5. Alexander v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938

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