Legal Opinion

Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1991No. Docket Nos. F014463, F014697PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

THAXTER, J.

We hold here that a judge’s failure to respond to or strike an allegedly untimely and legally insufficient statement of disqualification equates to a consent to disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 170.3, subdivision (c)(4). Under the circumstances here, the statement of disqualification was timely even though not asserted until after the judge granted a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse that judgment. We also deny the petition of Harris Farms, Inc., for writ of mandate seeking to vacate a lower court order finding that the judge…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of Tulare Cty.California Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Oak Grove School District v. City Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. McCulloughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  4. Cadenasso v. Bank of ItalyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. People v. Christian J.California Court of Appeal · 1984

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. People v. PanahCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State UniversityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Church of Scientology v. WollersheimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. Betz v. PankowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  5. In Re Arthur U. San Agustin v. Superior Court of Guam, People of Guam, Real Party in Interest, Masatomo Nadeau, Real Party in InterestSupreme Court of Guam · 2024

24 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