Lynch v. Superior Court of S.F.
EDWARD LYNCH, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Etc., Et Al., Respondents
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- The Court (author)
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 application for a writ denied. In denying the application, it is proper to say that the sickness of a party to an action, preventing his attendance on the court, does not ipso facto require the court to grant an application for a continuance, made on his behalf. It is for the trial court in all cases, except where otherwise expressly provided by statute, to determine whether or not the circumstances shown upon an application for a continuance are such as to make it proper that a continuance should be granted, and its conclusion thereon will not be disturbed unless there has been a plain abuse of discretion. We make this statement in view of the fact that it is alleged in the petition that in granting continuances heretofore made, the court said that it was of the opinion that it is not a matter of discretion with the court to refuse a continuance, where it is made to appear that the defendant is unable by reason of sickness to *124 appear. There is no decision of this court which can be properly construed as denying the discretion of the trial court in such eases.
Cited by
- Darling v. Darling CA2/6 B323719 · 2024-01-16
- Dennis v. Overholtzer Civ. 20158 · 1962-04-25
- Hansen v. Bernstein Civ. 18611 · 1952-03-31
- Kalmus v. Kalmus Docket Nos. 17534, 17672, 17700 · 1951-04-12
- White v. Rurup Civ. No. 16501 · 1948-11-19
- McElroy v. McElroy L. A. 20256 · 1948-10-28
- Hurley v. Kazantzis Civ. 13489 · 1947-11-13
- Ferrari v. Mambretti Civ. No. 12888 · 1945-08-10
- California Canning Machinery Co. v. Superior Court L. A. No. 15144 · 1935-05-06
- McKeehan v. Pacific Finance Corp. Docket No. 601. · 1932-02-09
- First National Bank v. Thompson Docket No. L.A. 11422. · 1931-04-27
- Short v. Short Docket No. 7163. · 1930-06-04
- Imperial Livestock & Mortgage Co. v. Tracy Docket No. L.A. 9192. · 1929-09-26
- Mission Film Corp. v. Chadwick Pictures Corp. Docket No. L.A. 9580. · 1929-06-21
- E. A. Test, Inc. v. Mabrey Docket No. 3737. · 1929-05-24
- Haruko Takeuchi v. Schmuck Docket No. L.A. 9375. · 1929-04-01
- Estate of Clark Docket No. 6096. · 1928-10-24
- Lindsey v. Wright Docket No. 5495. · 1927-07-20
- Derkmann v. Von Blumenthal Civ. No. 4119. · 1924-11-14
- Bank of Orland v. Harlan Sac. No. 3124. · 1922-03-16
- Ilfeld v. Porter Civ. No. 3398. · 1921-04-09
- Pacific Wharf & Storage Co. v. Standard American Dredging Co. L. A. No. 4969. · 1920-10-05
- Napa Valley Electric Co. v. Calistoga Electric Co. Civ. No. 2529. · 1918-10-18
- Blochman Commercial & Savings Bank v. Moretti L. A. No. 4120. · 1918-01-18
- Wetzel v. Cale S. F. No. 7275. · 1917-05-31
- Tidewater Southern Railway Co. v. Harney Civ. No. 153l. · 1916-12-05
- Canty v. Pierce & Anderson S. F. No. 6959. · 1916-07-27
- Ham v. Grapeland Irrigation District L. A. No. 3544. In Bank. · 1916-05-25
- Dealey v. East San Mateo Land Co. Civ. No. 1054. · 1913-01-23
- Sheldon v. Landwehr L.A. No. 2531. · 1911-05-20