Legal Opinion
Balon v. Drost
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 1, 1993No. A060232PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KLINE, P. J.—
Introduction
Appellant Deanna Balón appeals the trial court’s order granting respondent Shawn G. Hurley’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it found appellant did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 474.1 We agree, and therefore shall reverse.
Statement of the Facts and Case
On December 28, 1990, appellant was involved in a traffic collision with a vehicle driven by Shawn Hurley (hereinafter respondent), but owned by Ethel Drost. Immediately after the accident, appellant and respondent went to a nearby…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Munoz v. PurdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Irving v. CarpentierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Westfour Corp. v. California First BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Schroeter v. LowersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Woo v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- General Motors Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Fuller v. TuckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Davis v. MarinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Balon v. DrostCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.