California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Hagan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2 Cal.Rptr. 288, 348 P.2d 896, 53 Cal.2d 498 (Cal. 1960):
Moreover, in a prohibition proceeding all presumptions are in favor of the propriety of the lower court's action, and the burden is on the petitioners to establish any claimed excess of jurisdiction. (See Franklin v. Superior Court (1950), 98 [53 Cal.2d 508] Cal.App.2d 292, 294(2), 220 P.2d 8; 40 Cal.Jur.2d 158, 13; id. 262-265, 85, 86, and cases there cited.) Here, since we do not have a complete record of the proceedings in the trial court, it is our duty to presume that the order requiring the posting of security was intended to be and would be applied only to the derivative aspects of petitioners' complaint in intervention, and not to their personal rights as alleged stockholders. There is no showing that petitioners have ever been ordered to post security in an action or on a cause of action pleading only stockholders' personal rights. It is of course true that in the absence of a complete record petitioners' assertions as to the legal effect of the pleadings and proceedings in the dissolution action cannot properly be accepted in derogatioin of the lower court's jurisdiction.
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.