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

Olsan v. Comora

California Court of Appeal
140 Cal. Rptr. 835 (1977)


In July 1972, Barbara Olsan (plaintiff), obtained a money judgment for $382,886 plus costs against Emanuel Comora (defendant) and Cybertronics-Nevada, Inc. Olsan was only able to collect $36,540 from Comora as that amount had been placed in escrow. Olsan assigned the judgment to Metropolitan Adjustment Bureau (Metropolitan) which instituted a receivership action against Comora. In support of its request for a receiver, Metropolitan submitted two declarations. In the first, Metropolitan’s president stated that Comora had refused to pay the judgment upon Olsan’s demand therefor, that Olsan had been unable to reach Comora’s earnings from his dental practice, and that a receivership was the only means by which the judgment could be collected. In the second declaration, the attorney for Olsan who had litigated her case against Comora related the extent to which Olsan had sought to enforce the judgment—including by bringing a separate, unsuccessful proceeding to reach certain assets. The attorney further stated that Comora had personally informed him that the judgment would be difficult to collect because of the way that Comora’s accounts receivable were set up and because Olsan would be hard pressed to locate assets of Comora that could be levied upon. In February 1976, the court issued an order appointing a receiver to collect all amounts received by Comora through his dental practice. Comora appealed.

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.


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 (Hastings, 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 201,000 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.