Legal Opinion
Mattison v. Lichlyter
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 9, 1958No. Civ. 23100PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFourt, J.
This is an appeal from an order quashing service of summons, opening a default and vacating a default judgment.
The plaintiff filed her complaint on January 25, 1955, in which she set forth four causes of action. On January 26, 1955, the defendant Lichlyter was personally served with a summons and complaint in the action in Los Angeles County. At the time of the service of the summons and complaint the said defendant was a resident of Colorado, and prior thereto had for two years been a resident of the State of Oklahoma. The defendant was present in the State of California on January 26, 1955,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Matthews v. . TuftsNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Cadenasso v. Bank of ItalyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Murrey v. MurreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Fox v. Hale & Norcross Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Hammons v. Superior Court of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Severn v. Adidas SportschuhfabrikenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- St. John v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- People v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Severn v. Adidas SportschuhfabrikenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Severn v. Adidas SportschuhfabrikenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973