Legal Opinion

Le Francois v. Goel

California Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 2005No. S126630PublishedCited by 120 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHIN, J.

this lawsuit, defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion. More than a year later, some of the defendants again moved for summary judgment on the same grounds. The court granted the second motion. We must decide whether the court had authority to consider the new motion even though it was not based on either new facts or new law. Code of Civil Procedure sections 437c, subdivision (f)(2), and 1008 seemingly prohibit a party from making such a new motion.1 The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had inherent power derived from the California…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Gikas v. ZolinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Brydonjack v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Superior Court v. County of MendocinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Walker v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

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

3Cited by120 opinions

  1. Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Feldman v. Google, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Briggs v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Reilly v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. BoyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009

115 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