# Neary v. Regents of University of California

> California Supreme Court · August 13, 1992 · 3 Cal. 4th 273

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593326

## Case

- **Full name:** GEORGE NEARY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 13, 1992
- **Citations:** 3 Cal. 4th 273; 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 859; 92 Daily Journal DAR 11277; 834 P.2d 119; 61 U.S.L.W. 2116; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7039; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 3790
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Baxter, Mosk, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 74 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in City of Palmdale v. Board of Equalization.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593326

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that, absent extraordinary circumstances, parties are entitled to a stipulated reversal to effectuate settlement

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9593326. Public record. Not legal advice.