Legal Opinion

Bartneck v. Dunkin

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 21, 1969No. Civ. 24849PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TAYLOR, J.

Plaintiffs, A. J. Bartneck and his wife (hereafter Bartnecks), appeal from an order quashing their writ of execution, compelling them to execute satisfaction of a judgment, and awarding to- defendants Fred Dunkin and his wife (hereafter Dunkins), the statutory penalty of $100, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 675, for the Bartnecks’ refusal to execute and acknowledge the satisfaction of judgment. The major contention on appeal is that the order must be reversed as the Bartnecks’ assignment of the prior judgment to one set of joint tortfeasors, the Millers, did not…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Dillard v. McKnightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. American Can Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Adams v. White Bus LineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Augustus v. BeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re National Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool Certificates Securities LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1986
  2. Winzler & Kelly v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  3. McCall v. Four Star Music Co.California Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. In Re: The Exxon Valdez Grant Baker, as Representatives of the Mandatory Punitive Damages Class v. Exxon Corporation Exxon Shipping CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  5. Bennett v. DunnDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1980

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