Corporate business attorney

 

Defendants, an owner and a driver, sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered a judgment for plaintiff in a negligence action.

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the owner and the driver after their bus collided with her car. Upon a jury trial, the superior court entered a judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appealed. The court affirmed the judgment. It determined that (1) since the record failed to disclose at whose request defendants' appealed jury instruction was given, Corporate business attorney was presumed that the instruction was given at defendants' request, (2) any prejudicial error in asking the driver about his driving prior to accident was cured by answers favorable to defendants, (3) the superior court struck from the record and told the jury to disregard a witness's testimony that the driver was driving recklessly, and (4) there was no prejudicial error in plaintiff's examinations of the driver and the witness about the conduct of the driver before he entered the intersection where the accident occurred.

The court affirmed the judgment for plaintiff.

Following a hearing the council of petitioner city voted to deny the real party in interest's planned unit development permit. Real party then petitioned respondent Superior Court of Solano County (California) for administrative mandamus. After respondent ordered two councilmen to answer questions put to them by real party's attorney, they petitioned for a writ of prohibition.

The council of petitioner city denied the real party in interest's planned unit development permit. Real party then petitioned respondent superior court for administrative mandamus. Respondent ordered two councilmen to answer questions put to them by real party's attorney, who then petitioned for a writ of prohibition. The court of appeal issued a peremptory writ of prohibition directing respondent to vacate its order. The questions propounded by real party's attorney exceed the scope of permissible discovery. Real party's attempt to elicit proof that the councilmen stated their opposition to the permit in advance of the administrative hearing was equally improper. Although real party was entitled to an independent judicial determination of the issue of whether it received a fair administrative hearing, it made no showing that its questions were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(d), and thus respondent erred in granting the motion to compel answers.

The court issued a peremptory writ of prohibition directing respondent superior court to vacate its order granting real party's motion to compel answers because questions propounded by real party's attorney exceed the scope of permissible discovery.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Here Is How to Correct Your Pool Water Circulation

4 Brilliant Tips to Help Find the Right Pool Builder

3 Key Tasks A Reputation Management Software Can Help You Accomplish