Legal Opinion

Nebel v. Sulak

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 4, 1999No. E023264PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GAUT, J

1. Introduction

This appeal raises several questions of significance. First, to what extent may a disinterested third party observe a judgment debtor examination, and, *1366as a collateral issue, may a nonlawyer conduct a judgment debtor examination to enforce a small claims judgment?

We hold that a judgment debtor examination is a judicial proceeding open to the public. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 124 and 708.110, subd. (a).)1 Additionally, the examination must be conducted by a judicial officer or a member of the State Bar of California. (§ 708.140, subd. (b).) In the present case, the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Schild v. RubinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative GovernmentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  4. Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners' Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  5. Paradise Hills Associates v. ProcelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  2. EMID v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  3. Jogani v. JoganiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Plys v. Ang (In re Ang)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California · 2018
  5. People v. A.G.California Court of Appeal · 2010

3 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