Legal Opinion

Say & Say, Inc. v. Ebershoff

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 16, 1993No. B076762PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TURNER, P. J.—

I. Introduction

In this case, we determine that plaintiff, Say & Say, Inc., a corporation, is subject to the vexatious litigant law. (Code Civ. Proc., 1 § 391 et seq.) Accordingly, we issue a prefiling order pursuant to section 391.7, subdivision (a) 2 and direct that Say & Say, Inc., within 10 days secure an order from the presiding justice of this division permitting the continuation of the present litigation.

II. Factual and Procedural History

A. The Present Case

Although some of the pertinent factual matters involve events apart from the present lawsuit, we will begin the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Mireles v. WacoSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. In Re Murchison.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
  3. Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Taylor v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Shanghai Automation Instrument Co., Ltd. v. KueiDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2001
  2. Santa Clarita Organization for Planning & the Environment v. Castaic Lake Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. In Re Liang-Houh ShiehDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
  4. Say & Say v. CastellanoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  5. People v. Carlos V.California Court of Appeal · 1997

7 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