Teselle v. McLoughlin
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BLEASE, J.
This case illustrates the primacy of the complaint in measuring the materiality of the facts which a motion for summary judgment must address. It involves the relationships of at least four subdivisions of the summary judgment statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (b)(1), (2), (3), (p)(2). 4 )
The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed by one day to file a timely opposition statement of disputed material facts. (§ 437c, subd. (b)(2).) It said the failure was “a sufficient ground, in the court’s discretion, for…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Union Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Baldwin v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by85 opinions
- Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2009
- Consumer Solutions Reo, LLC v. HilleryDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
- Carlsen v. KoivumakiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Erikson v. NunninkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
80 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.