McAlvay v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

McAlvay v. Superior Court

115 Cal. App. 391

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 8, 1931

DocketCiv. No. 7991

StatusPublished

This text of 115 Cal. App. 391 (McAlvay 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

McAlvay v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 391 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

On petition for writ of mandate to require that respondent court issue its citation in a proceeding wherein certain persons are accused of an alleged contempt in relation to orders contained in a judgment of respondent court. This court being of the opinion that the act of the accused persons in serving and filing notice of intention to move the court to set for trial the action numbered 209,683 (mentioned and described in the petition herein) is not sufficient to constitute a claim or assertion of any interest, title or equity in violation of the injunction contained in said judgment, it follows that the petition for writ of mandate should be and the same is denied.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on July 31, 1931, and an application by petitioner to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 31, 1931.

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

THE COURT.

On petition for writ of mandate to require that respondent court issue its citation in a proceeding wherein certain persons are accused of an alleged contempt in relation to orders contained in a judgment of respondent court. This court being of the opinion that the act of the accused persons in serving and filing notice of intention to move the court to set for trial the action numbered 209,683 (mentioned and described in the petition herein) is not sufficient to constitute a claim or assertion of any interest, title or equity in violation of the injunction contained in said judgment, it follows that the petition for writ of mandate should be and the same is denied.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on July 31, 1931, and an application by petitioner to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 31, 1931.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 Cal. App. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcalvay-v-superior-court-calctapp-1931.