Legal Opinion

Hudgins v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 8, 1995No. A061461PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PHELAN, J.

Appellant Kirby Hudgins (hereafter appellant or Hudgins) seeks review of a judgment entered upon stipulated facts presented in connection with the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. After a long and tortuous series of proceedings—involving first an order granting appellant’s motion, then a mistaken issuance of an order granting the motion of respondent Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (hereafter respondent or Neiman Marcus), a motion for clarification, a second order granting appellant’s motion, a motion by respondent for reconsideration, belated intervention by the state…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn.California Supreme Court · 1972
  2. AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. Kerr's Catering Service v. Department of Industrial RelationsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Barnhill v. Robert Saunders & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
  5. Aguilar v. Association for Retarded CitizensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

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

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Diaz v. Allstate Insurance GroupDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1998
  4. Prachasaisoradej v. Ralphs Grocery Co.California Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Koehl v. Verio, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006

37 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