Legal Opinion
Minick v. City of Petaluma
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 2, 2016No. A143187PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STREETER, J.
—Alter the trial court granted summary judgment for the City of Petaluma (the City) in this personal injury case, plaintiff Christopher Minick (Minick) moved for discretionary relief from the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), 1 on grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” His attorney, Joshua Watson, submitted a declaration in support of the motion explaining that, at the time he prepared Minick’s summary judgment opposition papers, he was suffering from a serious illness for which he was under heavy medication.…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- People v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Shamblin v. BrattainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Rappleyea v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Paterno v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Boschetti v. Pac. Bay Invs. Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- 510pacificave v. Lucido CA2/5California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Arega v. Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- Boschetti v. Pacific Bay Investments Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2019
- Bou v. Velasquez CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2021
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.