Legal Opinion

Beeman v. Burling

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 9, 1990No. A041335PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KLINE, P. J.

Appellant Spencer M. Burling appeals a default judgment rendered against him in the amount of $197,044.01. He asserts (1) the default judgment must be vacated because he was not personally served with the statement of damages and because respondent’s proof at the default hearing amounted to a de facto amendment of the complaint, which should have revived appellant’s ability to respond; (2) the judgment relies upon two sections of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance that are unconstitutional; (3) the judgment exceeds the relief demanded and thus must be reduced; and (4) the…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Fletcher v. Western National Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  2. Fisher v. City of BerkeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Daley v. County of ButteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  5. Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1982

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Kizer v. County of San MateoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Saunders v. TaylorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  3. Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  4. Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. Carlsen v. KoivumakiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014

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

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

Powered by the Exa API