Legal Opinion

Weinkauf v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County

California Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1966No. S. F. No. 22285PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTobriner, J.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of Tuolumne County from enforcing an order directing him to reimburse the real parties in interest in the amount of $500 for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in pursuit of discovery proceedings against petitioner’s client. Since section 2034, subdivision (d), of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes such an order,and since we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in rendering it, petitioner’s sought writ should not issue.

The present controversy arose out of a personal injury damage action in which petitioner…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Meyer v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Lund v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Bauguess v. PaineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Deyo v. KilbourneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  3. Petersen v. City of VallejoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  4. Fairfield v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  5. Hillman v. StultsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

18 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