Legal Opinion · Dissent
Shaw, Hooker & Co. v. Haisman
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 18, 1976No. Civ. 37605Published
1DissentSims, J.
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion the revised attachment law was aimed at relieving individuals from attachment for debts incurred in connection with the purchase of consumer goods. (See memorandum in support of Sen. Bill No. 1048, as set forth in appendix to Gill v. De Sanz (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 457, at pp. 469-472 [125 Cal.Rptr. 384], particularly comment to § 537.2; Cal. Law Revision Com., Recommendation Relating to Prejudgment Attachment (1973) pp. 722-723; and id., Recommendation Relating to Revision of the Attachment Law (1975) pp. 808-809.) In Advance Transformer Co. v. Superior…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Higgins v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Whipple v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Washburn v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. NubarCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1950
- James Kendall Clancy v. The First National Bank of Colorado SpringsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1969
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.