Hassanally

Hassanally v. Firestone

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1197·51 Cal. App. 4th 1241·59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625·96 Daily Journal DAR 15393·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9395
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 1996B102911California1,253 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Throughout most of its history, California law has provided that no judge may receive a salary if he or she has had a case under submission more than 90 days. Occasionally judges have sought to evade this proscription by the device of “resubmitting” the case shortly before, or after, the running of the statutory period. In this case we hold that, although the practice is improper where not justified by unusual circumstances, it does not afford a basis to attack the decision that is ultimately reached.

Factual and Procedural Summary

This appeal arises out of a dispute between a property owner who retained a firm of architects to design a home and the firm he engaged. Zaffar Hassanally was the plaintiff in the trial court and is the appellant here. He retained defendants and respondents Ronald Gordon Firestone and the architectural firm of which he was a partner (collectively, Firestone), to design, draw plans and do related work for a residence plaintiff was planning to construct. The complaint alleges that Firestone failed to anticipate the requirements of and to submit plans to an architectural board having authority over construction in the area. The result, it was…

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.