Legal Opinion

DeRose v. Heurlin

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 16, 2002No. G028450PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FYBEL, J.

Introduction

On our own motion we impose sanctions against Attorney John M. Heurlin and his law firm (Heurlin) for filing and prosecuting a frivolous appeal. We conclude Heurlin had improper motives in seeking (1) to delay the effects of an adverse judgment and (2) to cover up his mishandling of client trust funds and his dishonesty before the trial court. Heurlin compounded the deception at oral argument after notice of this court’s consideration of sanctions against him. He was inexcusably unable or unwilling to respond forthrightly to our questions regarding his conduct.

Proce…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Pierotti v. TorianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  5. Keitel v. HeubelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. Friends of Panamint Valley v. KempthorneDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2007
  3. Lasalle v. Vogel, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. Fisher v. State Pers. Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  5. Bias v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

4 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