# MacLeod v. Superior Court

> California Court of Appeal · December 30, 1952 · 115 Cal. App. 2d 180

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538754

## Case

- **Full name:** JOHN MacLEOD Et Al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY Et Al., Respondents; RUTH NORRIS, Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** December 30, 1952
- **Citations:** 115 Cal. App. 2d 180; 251 P.2d 728; 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1786
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Vallee
- **Judges:** Wood (Parker)
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538754

## Opinion text

VALLÉE, J.
I concur. I do so only because the Supreme Court says that literal compliance with the statute is sufficient. In my opinion, the rule stated in Irving v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App. 361 [ 249 P. 236 ], should be followed. The statute, as written, permits a proceeding brought for the sole purpose of annoying, harassing or embarrassing another, or for some ulterior object. It permits one who does not have a cause of action to indulge in a meddlesome fishing expedition. That I think is this case. It should not be permitted. But the remedy lies in the field of legislation, and not in the creation of exceptions or qualifications under the guise of interpretation of the statute.
Shinn, P. J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied January 27, 1953, and petitioners’ application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 26, 1953. Schauer, J., and Spence, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538754. Public record. Not legal advice.