Saugstad

Saugstad v. Superior Court

Good Law
183 Cal. App. 2d 277·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1749·6 Cal. Rptr. 580
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 28, 1960Civ. 10003California4,096 words

Opinion

Opinion

Van Dyke, J.

Petitioners herein seek a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent, superior court, from proceeding with a trial based on an indictment charging them with various crimes alleged to have arisen from the operations of the O. B. Saugstad Company (hereinafter referred to as “the company”) in its conduct of a Ford dealership in Roseville, California.

The petitioners are O. E. Saugstad, the owner of the company, William Kimball, General Manager of the company, James Quirk, its Sales Manager, Peter Dimitras, Roy Lee Murphy, Salvador Carrillo, Kim Hornsby, Floyd Naylor, all salesmen, Mary Reiehenau, an office employee, and one Robert Rumble.

The sales methods of the company, so far as material here, were disclosed by the witness James Ashley, who had been employed by the company in various capacities. He testified that cars were ordered from the factory and as they were readied for shipment the company would receive a production notice and thereupon a stock card would be made out for the expected ear and a number assigned to it. When the car arrived a key tag would be prepared with the stock number of the ear and the same number would be placed on the car itself, which was then…

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.