11 Cited authorities

Shamblin v. Brattain
44 Cal.3d 474 (Cal. 1988) Cited 759 times
Determining credibility of declaration supporting relief from default
Elston v. City of Turlock
38 Cal.3d 227 (Cal. 1985) Cited 238 times
Ruling on a motion for relief will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion
In re Marriage of Goddard
33 Cal.4th 49 (Cal. 2004) Cited 136 times
Distinguishing between lack of "fundamental authority," making a ruling void, and acts "in excess of jurisdiction or defined power, rendering the judgment voidable"
Lee v. an
168 Cal.App.4th 558 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 110 times
Holding that a prior court's use of the term "void" outside the context of distinguishing void from voidable orders does not control "for the purpose of deciding whether relief could be sought after the six-month period in section 473, subdivision (b)"
Ramos v. Homeward Residential, Inc.
223 Cal.App.4th 1434 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 91 times
Holding that failure to identity the person to be served, which means an individual and not a corporate entity, and failure to provide evidence that an individual actually received the summons, resulted in insufficient service of process on a corporation under California's Code of Civil Procedure
Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H.
126 Cal.App.4th 1241 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 107 times
Holding judgment attacked for lack of personal jurisdiction may be brought at any time
Neumann v. Malgar
121 Cal.App.4th 152 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 86 times
In Neumann, in addition to not considering appointment of counsel, the trial court did not interview the oldest child, and the evaluator's report on the children's best interest was not admitted into evidence or considered by the court.
Olvera v. Olvera
232 Cal.App.3d 32 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 77 times
Doing same, where service by publication was invalid
Isbell v. County of Sonoma
21 Cal.3d 61 (Cal. 1978) Cited 58 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Isbell v. County of Sonoma, 21 Cal.3d 61, 577 P.2d 188, 145 Cal.Rptr. 368 (en banc), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 996, 99 S.Ct. 597, 58 L.Ed.2d 669 (1978), the plaintiffs were accused of fraudulently receiving excess welfare benefits.
Efstratis v. First Northern Bank
59 Cal.App.4th 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 12 times
Docket No. C024294. November 26, 1997. Appeals from Superior Court of Yolo County, No. 96182, Thomas E. Warriner, Judge. Judge of the Yolo Municipal Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. COUNSEL Bronson, Bronson McKinnon, William H.G. Norman and Kymberly E. Speer for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hansen, Boyd, Culhane Watson, Hartley T. Hansen, Lawrence R. Watson and Thomas L. Riodan for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION DAVIS, Acting P

Motion Set Aside Vacate

11 Cited authorities

Determining credibility of declaration supporting relief from default

Ruling on a motion for relief will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion

Distinguishing between lack of "fundamental authority," making a ruling void, and acts "in excess of jurisdiction or defined power, rendering the judgment voidable"

Holding that a prior court's use of the term "void" outside the context of distinguishing void from voidable orders does not control "for the purpose of deciding whether relief could be sought after the six-month period in section 473, subdivision (b)"

Holding that failure to identity the person to be served, which means an individual and not a corporate entity, and failure to provide evidence that an individual actually received the summons, resulted in insufficient service of process on a corporation under California's Code of Civil Procedure

Holding judgment attacked for lack of personal jurisdiction may be brought at any time

In Neumann, in addition to not considering appointment of counsel, the trial court did not interview the oldest child, and the evaluator's report on the children's best interest was not admitted into evidence or considered by the court.

Doing same, where service by publication was invalid

In Isbell v. County of Sonoma, 21 Cal.3d 61, 577 P.2d 188, 145 Cal.Rptr. 368 (en banc), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 996, 99 S.Ct. 597, 58 L.Ed.2d 669 (1978), the plaintiffs were accused of fraudulently receiving excess welfare benefits.