Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hernandez v. Temple

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 25, 1983No. Civ. 65070Published

1Dissent

LILLIE, J., Dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that the matters as to which admissions were requested are not deemed admitted because the warning was not placed at the end of the original request within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 as strictly construed in order to prevent a forfeiture.

Nowhere in section 2033 does the word “forfeiture” appear. However, the question whether a statute imposes a forfeiture is not necessarily controlled by the designation which the Legislature has given to it; the determinative inquiry is whether the statute in fact…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. United Bonding InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Datta v. StaabCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. Billings v. EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  4. Kuhlemeier v. LackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. People v. One Pontiac 8 SedanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API