§ 1954
- Citation
- § 1954
- Parent Document
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-09-14
Other Sections in This Document (100)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- DeZerega v. Meggs, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 366 (2000)
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
- § 1954
Full Text
1,028 charsIn an acerbic if not intemperate petition for rehearing, counsel for plaintiffs accuses the court (directly or by pointed implication) of: (1) ruling against plaintiffs “without considering” their contention that defendant had no contractual relationship with them; (2) not “bothering to cite any case law"; (3) deciding the case “without, apparently, the benefit of consulting the common law”; (4) rendering “a mere expression of personal opinion, [which] does not constitute a reasoned decision illuminated and informed by precedent [and which] is fundamentally political, rather than legal, in nature”; (5) failing “to review and consider legal precedent”; (6) “ignor[ing]” statutory language cited by plaintiffs (i.e., Civ. Code, § 1954.53, subd. (d)); and (7) “rul[ing] against the plaintiffs without hearing their arguments, and [doing] so in a decision that cites virtually no law.” Counsel asserts, “The plaintiffs, as citizens of this state and as taxpayers in this state who pay for judicial salaries, deserve better.”