Legal Opinion

Teselle v. McLoughlin

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 22, 2009No. C054919PublishedCited by 85 opinions

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

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Union Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
  5. Baldwin v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972

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

3Cited by85 opinions

  1. Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. Pantoja v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2009
  3. Consumer Solutions Reo, LLC v. HilleryDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
  4. Carlsen v. KoivumakiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. Erikson v. NunninkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

80 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