Legal Opinion
Maggi v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 29, 2004No. G030802PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOORE, J.
As a remedy for the apparent violation of a protective order, the trial court entered several orders prohibiting petitioners and their counsel from contacting certain third party witnesses without court permission. When sought, permission to do so was denied. Because the orders limit the constitutional rights of petitioners and their counsel without legal justification, the petition is granted.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioners Carlos Maggi and James Montagano allege they invested in several limited partnerships involving real estate. Real parties in interest (real…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Ghirardo v. AntonioliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Dailey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Civil Service Employees Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P. v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- San Francisco Unified School District ex rel. Contreras v. First Student, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Steiner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- SP Healthcare Holdings, LLC v. Surgery Center Holdings, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
- Canyon Vineyard Estates I v. DeJoriaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- Steiner v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2013