Legal Opinion
Midwife v. Bernal
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 26, 1988No. E004839PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DABNEY, J.
Acting in pro. per. and in forma pauperis, appellant Mister Midwife filed a complaint against various members of the Bernal and Lomeli families arising from a dispute regarding the use of an easement. The Lomelis’ attorney noticed Midwife’s deposition to take place in his office on August 29, 1986. On August 29, attorneys for the Lomelis and the Bernals were present and prepared to depose Midwife; however, Midwife neither appeared nor telephoned to advise them that he would be unable to appear. That day, Midwife mailed a postcard to counsel for the Lomelis indicating that he…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Hovey v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Hammond Packing Co. v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Deyo v. KilbourneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Garamendi v. Executive Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Kohan v. CohanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Security Pacific National Bank v. BradleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.