Killeen v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 1958 No. Civ. No. 23106Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied the petition for a peremptory writ of prohibition because the trial court did not exceed its discretionary powers in appointing a receiver and the petitioner has an adequate remedy via a pending appeal.

Issues

Whether the trial court exceeded its discretionary powers in confirming the ex parte appointment of a receiver.
Whether the petitioner has an adequate remedy through a pending appeal.

Disposition. Alternative writ discharged and peremptory writ denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the order confirming the ex parte appointment of a receiver of the property described in the petition herein was in excess of the discretionary powers of the court”

“the petitioner has an adequate remedy through his pending appeal from said order.”

THE COURT. Upon the hearing pursuant to the alternative writ of prohibition heretofore issued herein the matter was argued and submitted. The alternative writ is discharged and a peremptory writ is denied for the reason that it has not been made to appear to the satisfaction of this court that the order confirming the ex parte appointment of a receiver of the property described in the petition herein was in excess of the discretionary powers of the court and the additional fact that the petitioner has an adequate remedy through his pending appeal from said order.

Killeen v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief