Greyhound corp v superior court
WebThe Beesley opinion points out that in the case of Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 2d 355 [15 Cal. Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266], it was held that written statements of independent witnesses are subject to inspection when the need is shown. The court, in the Beesley opinion, at page 208, continues: "Here good cause was shown in the fact ... WebThe court held in Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 397, 15 Cal. Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266, that remarks made by defense investigators were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Greyhound questioned Holm's ruling that photographs sent to counsel were protected by the attorney-client privilege, and determined that ...
Greyhound corp v superior court
Did you know?
WebAug 26, 2024 · Virginia’s highest court has overturned a homeowners association’s lawsuit victory. The court ruled that the HOA overstepped in fining and suing a family for leaving … WebJun 25, 2012 · The majority, relying on Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266 ( Greyhound ) and expressly declining to follow Nacht & Lewis, concluded that witness interviews and the information sought by form interrogatory No. 12.3 are not entitled as a matter of law to absolute or qualified work …
Webgreyhound corp. v. superior court PETERS, J. In this proceeding an alternative writ of prohibition was granted for the purpose of reviewing an order of discovery made by … WebIn Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 378, the court stated, "For the [237 Cal. App. 2d 757] guidance of trial courts the proper rule [of construction of the discovery statutes] is declared to be not only one of liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or ...
WebJun 18, 2013 · Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 C2d 355, 15 CR 90, interpreting the Discovery Act of 1957. The intention of the discovery statutes is to … WebSep 10, 2014 · The same court relied on Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961), 56 Cal.2d 355, 382-383, 388 as to how statutes must be viewed, stating: “The statutes must be liberally construed in favor of discovery, and the courts must not extend the limits on discovery beyond those expressed by the legislature. Other than to protect against …
WebFeb 28, 1997 · In Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266 ], the seminal case in California civil discovery, the court gave examples of improper "fishing" which clearly apply here: "The method of `fishing' may be, in a particular case, entirely improper (i.e., insufficient identification of the requested …
WebDec 1, 1997 · ( Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 376, 15 Cal. Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) "Certainly, it can be said, that the Legislature intended to take the 'game' element out of trial preparation while yet retaining the adversary nature of … outback steakhouse in gold riverWebIn Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355 [15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266], it was pointed out (p. 390) that in adopting the discovery statutes the Legislature had … role of motivation in business communicationWebGREYHOUND CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MERCED, Respondent; Earline Z. Clay et al., … role of mothers in the biblerole of motor unit in muscle contractionWebMorris Stulsaft Foundation v. Superior Court ( Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378-379 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266]; City of… Greyhound Corp. v. … outback steakhouse in goldsboro ncWebThe superior court held another hearing on December 5, 1969; when Dr. Lifschutz again refused to comply with the order, the court adjudged him in contempt (Code Civ. Proc., § 1209, subd. 5) fn. 2 and ordered him to be confined in the custody of the Sheriff of San Mateo County (Code Civ. Proc., § 1219). role of mri in cervical cancerWebThe same concept was stated in Rolf Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 186 Cal.App.2d 876, 881, and to some extent in Laddon v. Superior Court, supra, 167 Cal.App. {Page 56 Cal.2d 391} 391, wherein (at p. 395) the court expressed the view that relevancy as applied to pretrial examination (discovery) is more loosely construed than it is when ... role of mofpi