Passow v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Passow v. Superior Court

76 P.2d 515, 25 Cal. App. 2d 89, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 765

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 16, 1938

DocketCiv. No. 10770

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 P.2d 515 (Passow 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

Passow v. Superior Court, 76 P.2d 515, 25 Cal. App. 2d 89, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 765 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The petition ~or a writ of prohibition is denied upon the ground that, in the proceeding [90]*90pending before the respondent court to strike “the settlement and certification of the bill of exceptions” by the trial judge, the respondent court has jurisdiction to alter or amend its records so as to cause them to “speak the truth”. (Dowd v. Superior Court, 69 Cal. App. 4 [230 Pac. 961]; In re Silva, 213 Cal. 446, 450 [2 Pac. (2d) 341].) Though the petitioner herein contends that the respondent court threatens to go beyond these limits and to correct judicial errors theretofore made, we may not assume that the respondent court will exceed its jurisdiction in that respect. But, if this should occur, the petitioner has an adequate remedy at law.

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

THE COURT.

The petition ~or a writ of prohibition is denied upon the ground that, in the proceeding [90]*90pending before the respondent court to strike “the settlement and certification of the bill of exceptions” by the trial judge, the respondent court has jurisdiction to alter or amend its records so as to cause them to “speak the truth”. (Dowd v. Superior Court, 69 Cal. App. 4 [230 Pac. 961]; In re Silva, 213 Cal. 446, 450 [2 Pac. (2d) 341].) Though the petitioner herein contends that the respondent court threatens to go beyond these limits and to correct judicial errors theretofore made, we may not assume that the respondent court will exceed its jurisdiction in that respect. But, if this should occur, the petitioner has an adequate remedy at law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 P.2d 515, 25 Cal. App. 2d 89, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/passow-v-superior-court-calctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack