Legal Opinion
Luckett v. Panos
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 24, 2008No. G038430PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
Our opinion today results in a partial win for appellant John Luckett. As we explain below, courts do indeed have the statutory authority to lift a prefiling order entered against an individual adjudicated to be a vexatious litigant. And, while we affirm the trial court’s order declining to lift a prefiling order against John Luckett this time, we also provide a roadmap as to how Luckett, or any other a person already adjudicated to be a vexatious litigant, can succeed in having that determination lifted.
I. THE ISSUE OF THE “PERPETUAL” VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
Two cases have…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- McDowell v. WatsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Pitchess v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Comfort v. ComfortCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Pba, LLC v. Kpod, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- In Re LuckettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- People v. BrewerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Kobayashi v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Fink v. ShemtovCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- PV Little Italy v. Metrowork Condominium Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- In re Marriage of Rifkin & CartyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.