Sullivan

Sullivan v. Superior Court

Good Law
105 Cal. Rptr. 241·1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 675·29 Cal. App. 3d 64
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 1972Civ. 31609California3,729 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bray, J.

Petitioner petitions for writ of prohibition or other writ to prohibit enforcement of discovery orders of the Superior Court of San Mateo County and an order for payment of attorney’s fees.

Questions Presented

1. Evidence Code section 771, regarding a witness’ use of a writing to refresh his memory, does not under the circumstances control over the code provisions protecting the confidential relationship between attorney and client.

2. Authority of the court to impose attorney’s fees on motion for reconsideration.

Record

Petitioner is the attorney for real parties in interest Mary Spingola and Nick Spingola and is their attorney in an action in the San-Mateo Superior Court, entitled “Mary Spingola and Nick Spingola, plaintiffs, v. Irene Delores Parker, Dessia Parker, et al., defendants,” for damages for injuries suffered by Mary Spingola in an automobile accident.

Facts

There is apparently no conflict as to the facts alleged in the petition. Petitioner alleges that he “had interviewed his client, Mary Spingola, concerning the events surrounding an automobile accident occurring on or about August 30, 1971, said accident being the basis of the aforesaid action for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.