Legal Opinion
Au-Yang v. Barton
California Supreme Court
Decided November 18, 1999No. S061703PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KENNARD, J.
Subdivision (a) of Code of Civil Procedure section 594 (hereafter section 594(a)) prohibits trial of an issue of fact in the absence of a party unless it is first proven that the absent party “has had 15 days’ notice of such trial.” When a case has been set for trial, with 15 days’ notice to all parties, and the trial court thereafter advances the trial to an earlier date, does section 594(a) prohibit the court from conducting the trial on the earlier date in the absence of a party who has not received 15 days’ notice of this trial date? The answer is yes.
I
In June 1991,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Weitz v. YankoskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Berri v. RogeroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Capital National Bank v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Sheldon v. LandwehrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Bird v. McGuireCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- In Re Marriage of GoddardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- McClain v. Kissler, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Severson & Werson, P.C. v. Sepehry-Fard, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.