Legal Opinion

Wilcox v. Birtwhistle

California Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1999No. S074519PublishedCited by 158 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BROWN, J.

In this case we consider whether a party who fails to respond to a request for admissions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033 and has a “deemed admitted order” entered against him may withdraw or amend these deemed admissions pursuant to subdivision (m) of that statute. We conclude that subdivision (m) permits the withdrawal or amendment of admissions deemed admitted for failure to respond.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The facts are undisputed. Mark Lee Wilcox, a minor appearing by and through his mother and guardian ad litem, Maria J. Wilcox, and Jerry Lee…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. People v. DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. People v. WoodheadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. Privette v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by158 opinions

  1. People v. ValenciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  2. In Re Marriage of BondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Elsner v. UvegesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Hess v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001

153 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