Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Robert BLOUGH, et al., Respondents, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., etc., Appellant.
Plaintiffs having filed a petition for rehearing, and good cause therefor appearing, such petition is GRANTED on the following terms and conditions.
The day before the opinion herein was filed, the Supreme Court filed its opinion in Moradi–Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., 46 Cal.3d 287, 250 Cal.Rptr. 116, 758 P.2d 58, (1988) which overruled Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.3d 880, 153 Cal.Rptr. 842, 592 P.2d 329, (1979) the case which afforded plaintiff Blough the legal theory under which he recovered judgment in the trial court.
Otherwise, plaintiffs, in their petition, urge their entitlement to a rehearing under section 68081 of the Government Code. In the court's view, it is arguable whether the grounds for its opinion were “proposed” by defendant.
Because of the foregoing, and, because certain issues presented by this appeal and dealt with in the opinion were not adequately addressed by the briefs on either side, in order to achieve a full and fair hearing of such issues, all briefs heretofore filed are STRICKEN.
It is further ORDERED that the posture of the case, as of the date this order is filed, shall be deemed equivalent procedurally to that when rule 10 of the California Rules of Court has been complied with. In other words, the date of this order shall be the date from which the computation of time under rule 16, California Rules of Court, shall be reckoned; briefing ab initio shall proceed accordingly with directions to do so in light of Moradi–Shalal.
THE COURT:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. E003250.
Decided: September 15, 1988
Court: Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)