Is a denial of a request for continuance to supplement a motion reviewed for abuse of discretion?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Kirk v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., B252238 (Cal. App. 2015):
2. Denial of a request for continuance to supplement a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (See Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 15-18.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does the trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion for continuance by denying the requested continuance? (California, United States of America)
How does the court review a denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of abuse of review? (California, United States of America)
Is denial of a nonstatutory motion to vacate reviewed for abuse of discretion? (California, United States of America)
Can a motion for a continuance be reviewed for abuse of discretion? (California, United States of America)
When reviewing a motion for a new trial, does the appellate court apply the standard of "abuse of discretion" in denying the motion? (California, United States of America)
Is a superior court's decision not to continue, on its own motion, a hearing for a restraining order under the DVPA reviewed for abuse of discretion? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of abuse of discretion in the appellate review of the denial of Romero motions? (California, United States of America)
How should the Court of Appeal review the first-stage ruling of a motion to review the denial of Batson/Wheeler motion? (California, United States of America)
Is a motion for continuance subject to review under the abuse of the discretion standard? (California, United States of America)
Can a motion for a continuance be reviewed for abuse of discretion? (California, United States of America)
