Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brown v. Brown

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 7, 1996No. D022487Published

1DissentWork, Acting P. J.

I respectfully dissent.

Probate Code section 2645, subdivision (b), effective January 1994, reads as follows: “No parent, child, sibling, or spouse of a person who is a guardian or conservator, and no law partnership or corporation whose partner, shareholder, or employee is serving as a guardian or conservator shall receive any compensation for legal services performed for the guardian or conservator unless the court specifically approves the right to the compensation and finds that it is to the advantage, benefit, and best interests of the ward or conservatee.” (Italics added.) On its face,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co.California Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Steven A. v. Rickie M.California Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Orange County Employees Retirement System Board of DirectorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Rich v. State Board of OptometryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965

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