Legal Opinion

Nissan v. Barton

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 3, 1970No. Civ. 11696PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

JANES, J.

Plaintiff Mary J. Nissan appeals from an order setting aside a default and default judgment which had been entered in her behalf against respondent William Barton. The default and default judgment were vacated upon the ground that both were void. Barton cross-appeals from the judgment. We will refer to plaintiff-appellant, who is also respondent on the cross-appeal, as “appellant” and to Barton as “respondent.”

Chronology of Proceedings

Appellant’s original complaint and each of three succeeding amended complaints designated two named individuals and 20 Does as defendants.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. McDonald v. MabeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. City of Los Angeles v. MorganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. Fazzi v. PetersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Stephens v. BerryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Dieckmann v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  2. Fifth & Broadway Partnership v. Kimny, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1980
  3. Huy Thanh Vo v. Nelson & KennardDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2013
  4. Liberty Transport, Inc. v. Harry W. Gorst Co.California Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Phoenix of Hartford Insurance v. Colony KitchensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

5 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