# Bradley v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · May 7, 1957 · 48 Cal. 2d 509

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9792251

## Case

- **Full name:** JAMES PARKS BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; FRANCES (BRADLEY) LANE, Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 7, 1957
- **Citations:** 48 Cal. 2d 509; 310 P.2d 634; 1957 Cal. LEXIS 200
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Carter
- **Judges:** Carter, Schauer, Traynor
- **Cited by:** 67 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/9792251

## Opinion text

CARTER, J.
I concur in the judgment annulling the contempt order and I agree generally with the views expressed in the majority opinion, but since certain decisions of this court (Dexter v. Dexter, 42 Cal.2d 36 [ 265 P.2d 873 ]; Messenger v. Messenger, 46 Cal.2d 619 [ 297 P.2d 988 ]) with which I do not agree are cited and relied upon in the majority opinion, I feel constrained to withhold my unqualified concurrence therefrom.
In the recent case of Herda v. Herda decided by this court on March 22, 1957, I took occasion in a concurring and dissenting opinion to call attention to the great confusion which now exists in this field of law due to irreconcilable conflicts in the decisions of this court and the appellate courts of this state. Since the main issue in the case at bar involves the interpretation and application of article I, section 15, of the Constitution of California there is no need for further discussion relating to this conflict.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9792251. Public record. Not legal advice.