Legal Opinion

Hammel v. Lindner

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 30, 1964No. Civ. 21153PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevine, J.

Defendant and cross-complainant appeals from an order setting aside an order dismissing respondent’s complaint and setting aside default and default judgment which had been entered for appellant on appellant’s cross-complaint. The default and dismissal had been granted because of failure of plaintiff and cross-defendant to answer certain interrogatories. The motion was to set aside the default judgment only, but the purpose was to obtain complete relief, and the superior court treated the motion as one to relieve from the default as well as from the default judgment. The motion was made more…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hallett v. SlaughterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Vartanian v. CrollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Turner v. AllenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. Davis v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Bartell v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Outdoor Imports, Inc. v. StanoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  2. Lieberman v. Aetna Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. People v. BorouskCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  4. Bailey v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  5. Palmer v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

1 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