Fitzsimmons v. Jones
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.
When a pretrial order provides, “The necessary parties are properly before the Court, and the action is at issue as to them,” and, further, defines the issues, may the trial court properly render judgment on the pleadings, based upon the inadequacy of the answer? In that circumstance may the aggrieved party obtain relief from the order under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473 ? Because the pretrial order controls inconsistent pleadings we have decided that the trial court erred in granting the judgment on the pleadings and that the adverse party may properly appeal from the denial of relief…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Phelan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Spellens v. SpellensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Winslow v. Harold G. Ferguson Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Litvinuk v. LitvinukCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Bice v. StevensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Twomey v. Mitchum, Jones & Templeton, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1968
- Godfrey v. SteinpressCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- People v. FontaineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Oliver v. the Swiss Club TellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Pearson v. NortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.