Legal Opinion
Weingarten v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 20, 2002No. D039959PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HALLER, J.
After the first phase of a trial in which the court found defendant Palomba Weingarten committed fraud and malice, the court ordered Weingarten to produce her 2000 and 2001 personal tax returns to permit plaintiffs to prepare for the punitive damages phase. Weingarten seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to set aside its disclosure order, contending the order violates her privilege to maintain confidentiality of her tax returns. We deny the requested relief.
We agree with Weingarten that a finding a defendant is liable for punitive damages is insufficient, by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Couch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Adams v. MurakamiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Webb v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Schnabel v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- ENOVSYS LLC v. Nextel Communications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Fortunato v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Doe 2 v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Li v. YanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Strawn v. Morris Polich & Purdy, LLP, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.