Citizens for Civic Accountability v. Town of Danville
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DONDERO, J. *
Consistent with a court order mandating electronic filing and service in this complex litigation matter, the clerk of the court e-mailed the parties a notice that judgment had been filed. The e-mail directed the parties to a Web site where they could sign in and open an electronic copy of the file-stamped judgment. Respondents move to dismiss this appeal because appellant did not file a notice of appeal within 60 days of its receipt of the clerk’s e-mail. We deny the motion and hold that the 60-day appeal period in California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1) is triggered…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
- Hughes v. Board of Architectural ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Hollister Convalescent Hospital, Inc. v. RicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Alan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
3Cited by4 opinions
- Worldmark, the Club v. Wyndham Resort Development Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2010
- Insyst, Ltd. v. Applied Materials, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Thiara v. Pacific Coast Khalsa Diwan SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Valero Refining Co. etc. v. Bay Area Air Quality etc.California Court of Appeal · 2020