Vermeulen

Vermeulen v. Superior Court

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 903·204 Cal. App. 3d 1192·251 Cal. Rptr. 805
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 1988No. A037335; No. A037462California5,927 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

We initially denied both petitions, primarily because of the state of the record. By agreement of counsel, normal motion procedure was not followed in the proceedings which resulted in the orders under review. There are no., reporters’ transcripts of the hearings on the motions underlying the orders. The exact scope of the motions is also uncertain. The record contains no factual statement, and is typical of those situations where everyone concerned presumably understands the factual predicate, but the parties fail to provide a sufficient record for review. 3 As a consequence, we have no way of knowing what types of asbestos products, product applications, use of or…

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.