Legal Opinion

Aheroni v. Maxwell

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 20, 1988No. B014118PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*289Opinion

LILLIE, P. J.

Plaintiff appeals from order setting aside defendant’s default and the ensuing default judgment. Defendant cross-appeals from the judgment.1

Facts

Plaintiff sued defendant2 to recover attorney fees for legal services rendered by plaintiff to defendant at defendant’s request. Defendant filed an answer which he described as “tentative.” The court rejected that answer and on July 3, 1984, gave defendant 30 days to answer. On August 7 defendant applied ex parte for an order extending the time to answer. In his declaration in support of the application, defendant stated that…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Olson v. CoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Weitz v. YankoskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Occidental Land, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  5. In Re Marriage of StevenotCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Rappleyea v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. City of Santa Monica v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. In Re Estate of BreardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  5. Law Offices of Dixon R. Howell v. ValleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005

10 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