Legal Opinion

Superior Insurance v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 1951No. L. A. 21924PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.

Petitioners seek mandamus 1 to compel respondent superior court to vacate an order for perpetuation of testimony and to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued in connection therewith. We have concluded that the testimony and the documents sought are within the scope of the statutory proceedings for perpetuation of testimony, and that the relief asked should be denied.

Sally Hays, the real party in interest, filed in respondent court an application for perpetuation of testimony under sections 2083 and 2089 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which she alleges: She expects to be a party to an action…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Hynding v. Home Accident InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Malmgren v. Southwestern Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Abrams v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Olds v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1945

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Terry v. FisherIllinois Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Holm v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Brooks v. OwensSupreme Court of Florida · 1957
  4. James G. Thomas, Jr., Brother and Next of Kin of Karen G. Thomas v. Elizabeth Oldfield, M.D.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Maddox v. GraumanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1954

44 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