Summary of Opinion: Bank of the West v. Superior Court; Kilpatrick v. Superior Court (Court of Appeal of California, 1990)

Factual and Procedural Background

The provided text is a brief entry from the Court of Appeal of California dated 1990 concerning two matters: Bank of the West v. Superior Court and Kilpatrick v. Superior Court. The opinion text contains the caption and a procedural notation indicating that "REVIEWS GRANTED." It further states that the opinion(s) were reprinted without change in two California appellate reports—233 Cal.App.3d 213 and 233 Cal.App.3d 233—to permit tracking while the matters were pending review by the Supreme Court.

No additional factual background about the underlying disputes, parties' conduct, or lower-court proceedings is included in the provided text.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The provided excerpt contains no substantive legal analysis. The primary procedural action recorded is that review was granted by a higher court (the Supreme Court of California) for the referenced matters. The only explanatory note in the text explains the administrative step taken by the Court of Appeal to reprint the opinion(s) without change in the cited appellate reports for the limited purpose of permitting tracking while Supreme Court review is pending.

Because the excerpt is effectively an administrative/procedural entry, it includes no step-by-step application of legal principles to facts, no discussion of statutory or case law, and no elaboration of rationale beyond the procedural status.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The entry records that reviews were granted in the matters of Bank of the West v. Superior Court and Kilpatrick v. Superior Court.

Implications:

• The cases were taken under review by the Supreme Court of California (the matters were no longer final at the appellate level while review was pending).
• The Court of Appeal reprinted the opinions without change in 233 Cal.App.3d 213 and 233 Cal.App.3d 233 for the limited, administrative purpose of permitting tracking while Supreme Court review was pending.
• No substantive precedent or new legal rule is stated in the provided text; the document functions as a procedural notice rather than a reasoned opinion establishing legal principles.

Source limitation note: This summary is based exclusively on the text provided. The original opinion(s) may contain fuller factual background, reasoning, and citations that are not included in the excerpt summarized here.