§Why CasetextPricing

RYAN v. ROSENFELD

Appellant’s Petition for Review

20 Cited authorities

  1. Rappleyea v. Campbell

    8 Cal.4th 975 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 1,242 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to set aside the default

  2. Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.

    22 Cal.3d 865 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 495 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the element of intent could not be effectively isolated

  3. Van Beurden Ins. v. Customized Worldwide Weather

    15 Cal.4th 51 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 264 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51 (Van Beurden), our Supreme Court interpreted this language to mean that a notice of entry of judgment served by the court clerk is served upon order of the court "only when the order itself indicates that the court directed the clerk to mail 'notice of entry' of judgment."

  4. Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico

    15 Cal.3d 660 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 332 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 669, we observed that Benoit extended the principle of constructive filing announced in People v. Slobodion, supra, 30 Cal.2d at page 367, "to situations wherein an incarcerated criminal appellant has made arrangements with his attorney for the filing of a timely appeal and has displayed diligent but futile efforts in seeking to insure that the attorney has carried out his responsibility."

  5. Annette F. v. Sharon S.

    130 Cal.App.4th 1448 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 96 times
    Declining to treat appeal from an order denying motion for reconsideration as a petition for writ relief

  6. City of Los Angeles v. Glair

    153 Cal.App.4th 813 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 86 times
    In City of Los Angeles v. Glair, 153 Cal. App. 4th 813 (2007), the lower court issued a preliminary injunction sought by the City of Los Angeles against the defendant after he began questioning the park's administrative assistants several times a day as to whether the director was in her office at the park.

  7. Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc.

    167 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 38 times

    No. H032027. September 25, 2008. Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. CV041750, Kevin J. Murphy, Judge. California Lemon Lawyers and Scott R. Kaufman for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow Canter and Henry A. Wirta, Jr., for Defendant and Appellant. OPINION PREMO, Acting P.J. If a trial court grants a motion to quash service of summons due to lack of personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, does the court have jurisdiction thereafter to rule upon that

  8. Jade K. v. Viguri

    210 Cal.App.3d 1459 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that liability insurer had a cognizable interest in preventing the default of its insured

  9. Seacall Development, Ltd. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd.

    73 Cal.App.4th 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 40 times
    In Seacall Development, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at page 205, our colleagues in Division Seven explained: "What constitutes 'abandonment' of the client depends on the facts in the particular case.

  10. Forman v. Knapp Press

    173 Cal.App.3d 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 39 times
    Dismissing appeal from a mislabeled motion to vacate a summary judgment

  11. Rule 8.104 - Time to appeal

    Cal. R. 8.104   Cited 2,055 times

    (a)Normal time (1) Unless a statute or rules 8.108, 8.702, or 8.712 provides otherwise, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of: (A) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled "Notice of Entry" of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; (B) 60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled "Notice of Entry" of

  12. Rule 8.108 - Extending the time to appeal

    Cal. R. 8.108   Cited 382 times

    (a) Extension of time This rule operates only to extend the time to appeal otherwise prescribed in rule 8.104(a); it does not shorten the time to appeal. If the normal time to appeal stated in rule 8.104(a) is longer than the time provided in this rule, the time to appeal stated in rule 8.104(a) governs. (Subd (a) adopted effective January 1, 2008.) (b) Motion for new trial If any party serves and files a valid notice of intention to move for a new trial, the following extensions of time apply: (1)