Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Muckle v. Superior Court

Court of Appeal of California
102 Cal. App. 4th 218 (2002)


Facts

In 1989, Andrew (defendant) and Cassandra Muckle (plaintiff) were married in Georgia. In July 1998, while the couple lived in California, Andrew bought a home in Georgia. In December 1998, Andrew moved into the Georgia home. Cassandra followed. Subsequently, Cassandra moved back to California. Cassandra later filed a petition for marital dissolution in the California trial court. Cassandra served Andrew with the dissolution papers by substituted service. Cassandra claimed that the home in Georgia was community property. Andrew filed a motion to quash the service for lack of personal jurisdiction. Andrew filed a declaration stating that he was 65 years old, had lived in Georgia since 1998, worked and paid taxes in Georgia, had a Georgia driver’s license, and was registered to vote in Georgia. The parties disagreed as to whether Andrew had sufficient minimum contacts with California for the court to have jurisdiction over Andrew. Cassandra filed a supplemental response asserting that Andrew had maintained sufficient minimum contacts with California by working in California for 10 years before moving to Georgia, filing for and receiving worker’s compensation from a California employer, and using some of the worker’s compensation funds to purchase the Georgia home. There was no evidence produced to support the allegations in Cassandra’s supplemental response. The trial court denied Andrew’s motion to quash, relying on many of the facts raised by Cassandra’s supplemental response, and found that Andrew had sufficient minimum contacts with California. Andrew filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s ruling denying Andrew’s motion to quash.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Huffman, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.