Brock v. Superior Court
Helen Starr Brock v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Outcome
- writ denied — APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to compel the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and Dudley S. Valentine, Judge thereof, to hear and determine an application for attorney's fees, costs and support of a minor child. Writ denied. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
THE COURT.
The petition herein, although filed as an original petition for writ of mandate, is in reality an amended and supplemental petition filed after this court had denied the original petition for the writ. (Civil No. 8180, Brock v. Superior Court, ante, p. 5 [5 P.2d 659].) [1] The only difference between the two petitions is that instead of the original paragraph IV thereof, there has been substituted a new paragraph IV, which sets out a new order of the superior court alleged to have been made nunc pro tunc on the tenth day of December, 1931, in place of the order contained in the former petition. There is nothing to show affirmatively, either by way of recital or otherwise, that the nunc pro tunc order of December 10, 1931, was made for the sole purpose of correcting a clerical error in the original order which the court had made.
The petition for writ of mandate is again denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- Brock v. Superior Court Docket No. 8180. · 1931-12-03