As most of us know, California follows the "one final judgment" rule, meaning appeals lie only following entry of final judgment. Except, of course, when California does not follow the one final judgment rule - and therein lies the trap for the unwary. The state Supreme Court's recent decision in In re Baycol Cases I and II, 2011 DJDAR 3129 (Feb. 28), illustrates how an exception to the rule can complicate...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In




