Legal Opinion
Hoffman-Haag v. Transamerica Insurance
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 21, 1991No. D012785PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BENKE, J.
In this case appellants Barbara Hoffman-Haag and John Haag argue that neither a motion for new trial under Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 657 nor a motion to vacate under section 663 may be based on a previously unasserted rule of law. In the particular circumstances presented here we reject their contention and affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Summary
The facts which give rise to the Haags’ appeal are tragic. According to the stipulation of facts the parties submitted to the trial court, on February 10, 1989, the Haags left their infant daughter Gwenevier in the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Crane v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1971
- Carney v. SimmondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- McCown v. SpencerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Barton v. OwenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Slemons v. PatersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Shaw v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- James B. Lunsford Regina T. Charboneau Bay Vista Enterprises, Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Stevens v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1996
- Yeap v. LeakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare WestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.