Hogan v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Hogan v. Superior Court

259 P. 765, 85 Cal. App. 499, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 490

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 20, 1927

DocketDocket No. 5997.

StatusPublished

This text of 259 P. 765 (Hogan v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hogan v. Superior Court, 259 P. 765, 85 Cal. App. 499, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 490 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The application herein for a writ of mandate is denied. Neither the transcript of the min *500 utes of the trial court nor of the entries in the clerk’s docket show that said cause was ever ordered submitted for determination and decision. On the contrary it appears from said docket entries and from the files in said cause that on February 28, 1927, which was long after the trial court had directed that the cause be briefed, Sue R. Merriman, one of the defendants in said action, filed an amended answer to the second amended complaint, and on August 27, 1927, filed a notice of motion, after due service of the same on petitioner’s attorney, that on September 2, 1927, which was the day on which the writ herein was applied for, she would move said court for an order permitting the filing of an amended answer to the complaint. Whether or not this latter motion related to the amended answer filed on February 28, 1927, is not made clear. However, in view of these latter proceedings, it is evident that the cause has never been under submission for final determination and decision. Therefore the writ applied for will not lie.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on October 19, 1927.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

The application herein for a writ of mandate is denied. Neither the transcript of the min *500 utes of the trial court nor of the entries in the clerk’s docket show that said cause was ever ordered submitted for determination and decision. On the contrary it appears from said docket entries and from the files in said cause that on February 28, 1927, which was long after the trial court had directed that the cause be briefed, Sue R. Merriman, one of the defendants in said action, filed an amended answer to the second amended complaint, and on August 27, 1927, filed a notice of motion, after due service of the same on petitioner’s attorney, that on September 2, 1927, which was the day on which the writ herein was applied for, she would move said court for an order permitting the filing of an amended answer to the complaint. Whether or not this latter motion related to the amended answer filed on February 28, 1927, is not made clear. However, in view of these latter proceedings, it is evident that the cause has never been under submission for final determination and decision. Therefore the writ applied for will not lie.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on October 19, 1927.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 P. 765, 85 Cal. App. 499, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogan-v-superior-court-calctapp-1927.