Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

FRESHMAN, MULVANEY, MARANTZ v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 26, 1985No. B010554PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LAVINE, J.*

Pursuant to order of the Supreme Court dated March 29, 1985, an alternative writ of mandate was issued requiring the trial court to vacate the motion of petitioners for relief from default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, or to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue.

Facts

Real party Carl Kreuger (Kreuger) is suing petitioner law firm for malpractice. The basic allegation of his suit is that Attorney Deutsch (Deutsch) of petitioners’ law firm mishandled his divorce case and caused him to lose a significant amount of property (most notably,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Roesch v. De MotaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Reher v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Baird v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Crest Catering Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Roam v. KoopCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Midwest Television, Inc. v. Scott, Lancaster, Mills & Atha, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1988
  2. Steele v. TotahCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. Janetsky v. AvisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  4. Lopez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  5. FRESHMAN, MULVANEY, MARANTZ v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API