Legal Opinion
Day v. Collingwood
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 16, 2006No. D047650PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
AARON, J.
I
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Fred Collingwood served a motion for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 1 on Lucian P. Day and Gussie L. Day and their attorney, Darren J. Quinn (collectively respondents), prior to entry of judgment. After the trial court entered judgment in favor of Collingwood, Collingwood filed the motion for sanctions. The trial court denied the motion as moot on the ground that it had been filed postjudgment. We conclude that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion and that the court erred in concluding that the motion was…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Lakin v. Watkins Associated IndustriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Guillemin v. SteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- West Coast Development v. ReedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Wong v. JingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Starrh and Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Peake v. UnderwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. v. Howell, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Li v. Majestic Industrial Hills LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.