City of South San Francisco v. Cypress Lawn Cemetery Ass'n
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POCHÉ, Acting P. J.
The Bond and Undertaking Law (Code Civ. Proc., § 995.010 et seq.) 1 provides that a governmental entity cannot be required to provide an undertaking in order to obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO), We hold that the public policy supporting this exemption is sufficiently strong to override a trial court’s inherent power to require an undertaking as a condition of issuing that form of interim injunctive relief. In light of this holding, we conclude that no recovery can be had from the undertaking which the trial court had no authority to require.
Background
At the…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- City of Long Beach v. MansellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Gantt v. Sentry InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Driscoll v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- County of San Diego v. California Water & Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
- Mosk v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Ass'n v. City of PowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Farrar v. Franchise Tax BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Leuzinger v. County of LakeDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
- Top Cat Productions, Inc. v. Michael's Los FelizCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Bedrosian v. Hadid CA2/5California Court of Appeal · 2021
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.