Legal Opinion
Armstrong v. Picquelle
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 14, 1984No. Civ. 28569PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STANIFORTH, J.
The dispositive issue on this appeal involves a challenge to the authority of a presiding judge who signed a statement of decision and then entered judgment, pursuant to section 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after the trial judge who presided over the trial of the action retired without issuing such statement or judgment. No such authority exists. We reverse the judgment.
Facts
Gerald C. Armstrong and Guy W. Picquelle entered into an oral partnership agreement to build a house on a parcel of unimproved real estate and split the profits upon its sale. The terms of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mace v. O'ReilleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Hutton v. GliksbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Marsh v. EdelsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Flynn v. California Casket Co.California Court of Appeal · 1951
- Schiffner v. PappasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- William S. Lund v. Donald H. AlbrechtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Linsteadt v. NicholasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Heenan v. SobatiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- People Ex Rel. Dept of Trans. v. MaldonadoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Raville v. SinghCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.