People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co.
33 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2004) Cited 420 timesHolding that a voidable judgment is "valid until it is set aside"
People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co.
49 Cal.4th 301 (Cal. 2010) Cited 54 timesConstruing former subdivision, now subdivision (j)
People v. Granite State Ins. Co.
114 Cal.App.4th 758 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 63 timesDistinguishing between postponement of the 90–day period and extension of the exoneration period
People v. Seneca Ins. Co.
116 Cal.App.4th 75 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 52 timesHolding that although an extension of the 180-day period in which a defendant could be returned to custody in order to avoid a forfeiture could be granted pursuant to statute, the surety was not entitled to the extension because it failed to demonstrate good cause
County of Los Angeles v. Williamsburg National Insurance Co.
235 Cal.App.4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 32 timesFinding § 1305.4 provided surety with statutory right to an oral hearing and it was prejudicial per se for trial court to deny
People v. Fairmont Specialty Group
173 Cal.App.4th 146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 39 timesIn People v. Fairmont Specialty Group (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 146, where law enforcement knew about an outstanding warrant but declined to place the defendant in custody, the court exonerated bail, stating, "To accept that authorities may willfully ignore a lawful warrant and still collect from the sureties involved is at odds with section 1305, which in general requires exoneration when the defendant's absence from court is entirely the fault of the authorities in the jurisdiction where the case is located."
People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. Inc.
137 Cal.App.4th 1349 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 38 timesIn Accredited, the Court of Appeal found an abuse of discretion in the denial of the surety's section 1305.4 motion because the investigator knew where the defendant resided at various times, with whom he associated, what actions the defendant had taken, and had received detailed tips about the defendant's current whereabouts.
People v. Ranger Ins., Co.
81 Cal.App.4th 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 43 timesHolding there was no abuse of discretion in denying the extension motion based in part on the declaration of the surety's investigator that did not "explain what a 'positive address' was, how he was able to find it, how he knew it was a bona fide address for [the defendant], and whether the address was still good"
People v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Co.
132 Cal.App.4th 1134 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 36 timesNo. C044702 November 22, 2004 Appeal from the Superior Court of Sutter County, Nos. CVCS031100 and CRF020002784, Robert H. Damron, Judge. Nunez Bernstein and E. Alan Nunez for Defendant and Appellant. Ronald S. Erickson, County Counsel, and Robert A. Muller, Assistant County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. HULL, J. Accredited Surety and Casualty Company (Accredited) appeals from an order denying its motions to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond, and from the summary judgment entered in favor
People v. Accredited Surety and Casualty Co., Inc.
220 Cal.App.4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 24 timesIn Accredited, the surety filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment claiming the notice was improper and the summary judgment was entered beyond the statutory deadline.
Rule 8.500 - Petition for review
Cal. R. 8.500 Cited 337 times(a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer