Legal Opinion
County of San Bernardino v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 22, 1994No. E014088PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DABNEY, J.
In this matter we are asked to join those unfortunate few of our colleagues who have been compelled to parse a statute which the mildest court has called “complicated” and the most forthright has accurately described as a “mass of cumbersome phraseology”—section 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Cf. Colusa Air Pollution Control Dist. v. Superior Court (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 880, 889 [277 Cal.Rptr. 110]; Fitzpatrick v. County of Sonoma (1929) 97 Cal.App. 588, 590 [276 P. 113].) We conclude that the first operative clause of the statute operates as a removal clause. As a…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Alexander v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Smith v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bank of America, N.A. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- State of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Arntz Builders v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.