Legal Opinion
Huens v. Tatum
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 27, 1997No. C021900PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAVIS, J.
In this case we hold that the 1992 amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 (further unspecified statutory references are to this code), which provides for mandatory relief from “dismissal” resulting from attorney mistake, neglect or inadvertence, does not apply to a voluntary dismissal entered pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff Jennie Lorraine Huens appeals from an order denying her section 473 motion to vacate a dismissal of defendant Cynthia Kay Tatum entered into as part of a settlement agreement with all defendants in the case. Shortly after the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- People v. OverstreetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- Gikas v. ZolinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v. ChuidianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Peltier v. McCloud River RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. PietakCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Yeap v. LeakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- English v. Ikon Business Solutions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.