Legal Opinion
Weisman v. Bower
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 28, 1987No. B022344PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LUI, J.
Summary
The law firm of Shea & Gould, counsel for Sachiko T. Bower and Preferred Capital International, Inc. (Bower), appeals from an order requiring it to pay $2,500 to Crowley, Lebow & Cuneo, counsel for Frederick K. Weisman, Frederick Weisman Company, and Rare Properties, Inc. (Weisman), as sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 for filing a “frivolous” motion for a protective order.1
*1234We conclude that, in light of the special circumstances of this case and the broad discretion trial courts have to grant motions for a protective order, the motion was not so…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Greyhound Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Bauguess v. PaineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Ellis v. Roshei Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1983
- Winick Corp. v. County Sanitation District No. 2California Court of Appeal · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Summers v. City of Cathedral CityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Bach v. McNelisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Corbett v. Hayward Dodge, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- Lossing v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.