Legal Opinion
Hansen v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 13, 1983No. AO23304PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HANING, J.
Petitioners (the Hansens) are defendants in a civil action. They did not make timely response to certain requests for admissions submitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033. By petition for extraordinary writs they seek review of respondent court’s orders declaring most of the requests admitted and denying the Hansens’ motion for relief from the consequences of their initial failure to respond. We conclude that the requests for admissions were not in proper form and therefore should not have been deemed admitted. Accordingly, we direct issuance of a peremptory writ…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hurtado v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Peterson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Burke v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- St. Mary v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Midwest Television, Inc. v. Scott, Lancaster, Mills & Atha, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1988
- Steele v. TotahCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Appleton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- FRESHMAN, MULVANEY, MARANTZ v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.