Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Golden State Co. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 24, 1938No. Civ. 11737Published

1Concurrence

McCOMB, J., Concurring.

I concur in the conclusion of the majority of the court. However, it is with considerable reluctance that I am unable to agree with the reasoning of my learned associates. Section 2021, subdivision 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in part that the testimony of a witness may be taken by deposition “when the witness is ... an officer, member, agent, or employee of a corporation ...”

As I read the majority opinion, it leads to one of two inevitable results: Either the court is (a) holding that “is” means “was” or (b) inserting in the statute the word “was”, so as…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Estate of BarnettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  2. International Coal Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  3. People v. Citizens National Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. Scott v. ShieldsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
  5. Evarts v. Killingworth Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1850

6 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