Phillips v. Barron

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Lamonica H.

    220 Cal.App.3d 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 33 times
    Relying on In re Jessica B., supra.

    In interpreting "shall" our Supreme Court has consistently rejected any such assumption. (See People v. McGee (1977) 19 Cal.3d 948, 958-959 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 657, 568 P.2d 382]; Morris v. County of Marin (1977) 18 Cal.3d 901, 908 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 251, 559 P.2d 606]; Averill v. Lincoln (1944) 24 Cal.2d 761, 764 [ 151 P.2d 119]; Phillips v. Barron (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 316, 319 [ 322 P.2d 506].) In People v. McGee, supra, 19 Cal.3d 948, the court was asked to interpret section 11483 which prescribes criminal penalties for those who fraudulently obtain welfare benefits under the aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) program.

  2. Avalos v. Welty

    237 Cal.App.2d 545 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 3 times
    In Avalos v. Welty (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 545, 547 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 447], "[e]ach of the two plaintiffs sued upon a separate cause of action which might have been the basis of a separate action.

    [7] Plaintiffs further contend that the motion for a new trial should have been denied because the moving party failed to file a memorandum of points and authorities as required by rule 203, subdivision (b), of the California Rules of Court. The violation of this rule does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and should not be a ground of reversal unless there is a showing of prejudice. ( Phillips v. Barron, 158 Cal.App.2d 316, 319 [ 322 P.2d 506].) Plaintiffs do not even suggest that they or the court were handicapped in any way by the lack of a memorandum of law.

  3. Bergloff v. Reynolds

    181 Cal.App.2d 349 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 21 times
    In Bergloff, a motion to reconsider an order dismissing an action for lack of prosecution was held to be a motion under section 473 which sufficed as the basis of the order vacating the dismissal.

    The absence of such a memorandum would not, in and of itself, preclude relief to the moving party. ( Proulx v. De Moti, supra, 106 Cal.App.2d 265, 270; see Phillips v. Barron, 158 Cal.App.2d 316, 319 [ 322 P.2d 506].) [6] But before determining whether the defendant was given sufficient notice that the application to vacate and set aside the order of dismissal was being made pursuant to section 473, it should first be determined whether the plaintiff gave notices of several motions or whether he merely set the same motion for hearing on several occasions.

  4. Vo v. Mitsathaphone

    No. F056245 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2009)

    The timely filing of a memorandum of points and authorities is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a motion for new trial; the motion may be granted even in the absence of a memorandum. (Phillips v. Barron (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 316, 319-320; see also, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1600(b), providing that the court may deny a motion for new trial if the memorandum is not timely filed.) Consequently, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is without merit, and is denied.

  5. Enterprise v. City of Beaumont

    574 S.W.2d 786 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978)

    The writ here granted will issue upon plaintiff's filing a bond with the Clerk of this Court in the sum of $5,000 that complies with the provisions of the law and the rules of civil procedure. The language contained in this paragraph is a paraphrase of that used by Justice Chadick in Barron v. Phillips, supra (544 S.W.2d at 755). The judgment is reversed, the cause is remanded with instructions, and a temporary injunction is granted.