Legal Opinion · Dissent

Balon v. Drost

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 1, 1993No. A060232Published

1Dissent

PHELAN, J.,

Dissenting.—The issue presented by this case is whether “forgetting” the name of the driver of a vehicle who causes a plaintiff injury amounts to genuine ignorance under the “Doe” amendment statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 474 (hereafter section 474).) The majority answers this question “Yes” and equates appellant’s claimed memory lapse of the clearly once known fact of the name of respondent as the driver who struck and caused her injury with the “real” lack of knowledge required by section 474. (Snoke v. Bolen (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1427, 1432 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 492]; Munoz v. Purdy…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Munoz v. PurdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  2. Irving v. CarpentierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Scherer v. MarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  4. Ingram v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  5. Schroeter v. LowersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

2 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