Kelsey Co. v. Spears

3 Citing cases

  1. Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting

    28 Cal.4th 249 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 411 times
    Concluding that the "discretionary relief provision of section 473 only permits relief from attorney error 'fairly imputable to the client, i.e., mistakes anyone could have made' "; and that " '[c]onduct falling below the professional standard of care, such as failure to timely object or to properly advance an argument, is not therefore excusable' "

    supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at pp. 21-23 [denying relief from a voluntary dismissal with prejudice entered pursuant to a settlement agreement]; In re Marriage ofKerry, supra, 158 Cal.App.3d at pp. 465-466 [vacating a stipulated judgment]; In re Marriage of Carter (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 479, 488-489 [denying relief from a stipulation]; Stevens v. Stevens, supra, 268 Cal.App.2d at pp. 429-430 [denying relief from a judgment of divorce incorporating a property settlement]; Sanserino v. Shamberger (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 630, 634 [denying relief from a stipulation]; Troxell, supra, 237 Cal.App.2d at pp. 152-153 [denying relief from a stipulation]; Bice v. Stevens (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 222, 232-233 ( Bice) [setting aside a voluntary dismissal with prejudice entered pursuant to a settlement agreement]; Robinson v. Hiles (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 666, 669-672 ( Robinson) [same]; Neblett v. Neblett (1948) 88 Cal.App.2d 859, 862-863 [setting aside a judgment of divorce incorporating a property settlement]; Kelsey Co. v. Spears (1918) 37 Cal.App. 27, 32-33 ( KelseyCo.) [vacating a judgment entered pursuant to a settlement agreement]; but see Huens v. Tatum (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 259, 266 ( Huens) (conc. opn. of Blease, J.).

  2. Chavez v. Scully

    69 Cal.App. 633 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)   Cited 2 times

    On the other hand, respondents have directed attention to certain cases wherein apparently the court reached a conclusion differing from that announced in the authorities cited by appellants. The principal case relied upon by appellants is that of Kelsey Co. v. Spears, 37 Cal.App. 27 [ 173 P. 606], in which it is held that where on a stipulated judgment, the effect of which was neither understood nor appreciated by the defendants and which was entered in violation of an understanding that it was to be submitted to the defendants for their approval before it became binding upon them — the court did not abuse its discretion in setting the judgment aside. In that case no question arose as to whether or not the proper remedy had been invoked.

  3. Rieckhoff v. Woodhull

    106 Mont. 22 (Mont. 1937)   Cited 9 times

    " In Kelsey Co. v. Spears, 37 Cal.App. 27, 173 P. 606, 608, the defendants and their attorney had agreed to a compromise judgment. The attorney was to prepare the judgment and submit it to the defendants.