holding that, absent extraordinary circumstances, parties are entitled to a stipulated reversal to effectuate settlement
How later courts described this case
- holding that, absent extraordinary circumstances, parties are entitled to a stipulated reversal to effectuate settlement
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in City of Palmdale v. Board of Equalization
3 Cal.4th 273, 276 , superseded by statute on another ground, as stated in City of Palmdale v. Board of Equalization (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 329, 338
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I concur under the facts of this case.
Nevertheless I am concerned about some of the implications of the majority opinion. In particular, their conclusion that a Court of Appeal should grant a stipulated reversal “absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances that warrant an exception” (maj. opn., ante, p. 275.) is too broad a rule. I would leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the appellate court.
It is not difficult to conceive that a defendant held liable for a product found by a court or jury to be negligently designed or manufactured would be eager to wipe that judgment out of existence in order to deter other victims from seeking recourse. And it is not difficult to understand that the victorious plaintiff would be so eager to collect on the judgment that he or she would give scant consideration to its potential effect on other victims. Yet the appellate court should give weight to such factors in its discretionary determination whether to approve a stipulated reversal.
Other equally serious scenarios can be conceived. Thus I cannot join in the majority’s gratuitous creation of some type of “presumption.” I trust that will be deemed a mere dictum. I do approve of their apparently conflicting suggestion that the circumstances must be examined on a case-by-case basis. No more is needed.