Court Opinion

ID: 9552864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:18:29.893092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:15.456037
License: Public Domain

*540SCHAUER, J.
As pointed out in my dissent in Pridonoff v. Balokovich (1951), 36 Cal.2d 788, 798 [228 P.2d 6], the United States Supreme Court has not yet passed on the validity of section 48a of the Civil Code of California.
The question was raised in Werner v. Southern Cal. etc. Newspapers (1950), 35 Cal.2d 121 [216 P.2d 825,13 A.L.R.2d 252], but after an appeal to the United States Supreme Court was filed (19 U.S. Law Week 3074) and probable jurisdiction noted (19 U.S. Law Week, Nov. 14, 1950, Index, p. 20) the cause was dismissed in the United States Supreme Court on motion of the plaintiff, presumptively for a consideration paid by the defendants.
My views as to the invalidity of section 48a are expressed in the dissents of Justice Carter and myself as reported in Werner v. Southern Cal. etc. Newspapers (1950), supra, 35 Cal.2d 121, 137, 150, and in Pridonoff v. Balokovich (1951), supra, 36 Cal.2d 788, 793, 798.
For the reasons therein stated I would grant a hearing and reconsider the questions raised.
Carter, J., concurred.