Legal Opinion

Vitug v. Griffin

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 28, 1989No. H004530PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

AGLIANO, P. J.

Plaintiffs filed a tort action against a receiver in possession of real property without first seeking permission to do so from the court which had appointed the receiver. The receiver was subsequently discharged without notice to plaintiffs and before they had obtained the required permission to sue. Moreover, plaintiffs’ claim was not accounted for in the receiver’s final report and account to the court. The receiver was later dismissed from the lawsuit on the ground that her discharge shielded her from tort claims which arose during the receivership. Two questions…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Randone v. Appellate DepartmentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Tingley v. Times Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Copeland v. SalomonNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Bemmerly v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Kelley v. UpshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Color-Vue, Inc. v. AbramsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  2. Anes v. Crown Partnership, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Seitz v. Freeman (In Re CitX Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. V & P Trading Co. v. United Charter, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. J.L.B. Equities, Inc. v. DumontNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1998

6 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