Legal Opinion
Iott v. Franklin
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 8, 1988No. B033057PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WOODS (N. F.), J.
Plaintiff-appellant appeals from an order, made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, 1 vacating a default and default judgment and permitting an answer to be filed.
The single issue we decide, involving section 473 2 “excusable neglect,” is this: May an attorney assume that opposing counsel has granted him extensions of time to file an answer because, in an effort to request such extensions, he has placed two phone calls to but not spoken with, written two letters to but not received answers from, opposing counsel? We think not.
Background
According…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Shamblin v. BrattainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Benjamin v. Dalmo Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Elston v. City of TurlockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1982
- Shearman v. JorgensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Uriarte v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co.California Court of Appeal · 1996
- Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Carmel, Ltd. v. TavoussiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- McClain v. Kissler, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Parage v. CouedelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.