§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition

Opposition

6 Cited authorities

  1. Deyo v. Kilbourne

    84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 154 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Deyo, it was held that the materiality of questions propounded to a particular claim or a defense should be considered as a factor in assessing the propriety of entering a dismissal or a default judgment for failure to answer.

  2. McGinty v. Superior Court

    26 Cal.App.4th 204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing discovery sanctions

  3. Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court

    188 Cal.App.2d 300 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 72 times
    Reversing order for terminating sanctions for incomplete discovery responses where order denied defendant "any right to defend the action or to present evidence upon issues of fact which [were] entirely unaffected by the discovery procedure"

  4. Wilson v. Jefferson

    163 Cal.App.3d 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 22 times
    In Wilson v. Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 952, terminating sanctions were excessive because the pending discovery related only to one affirmative defense and did not address many issues that were a part of the default judgment.

  5. Thomas v. Luong

    187 Cal.App.3d 76 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 17 times
    Terminating sanctions for failing to answer interrogatories or appear at deposition "substantially exceeded what was reasonably required to protect the plaintiff" where defendant had already answered earlier interrogatories and had offered to stipulate to liability

  6. Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court

    244 Cal.App.2d 605 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 21 times
    In Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 244 Cal.App.2d 605, where the defendant's answer was stricken, the appellate court reversed the trial court, stating that the sanction was too drastic.