California Codes
Cal. Evidence Code § 1401 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence.
(b)Authentication of a writing is required before secondary evidence of its content may be received in evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106
cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: People v. Rodriguez, 290 P.3d 1143 (Cal. 2012).
People v. Rodriguez, 290 P.3d 1143 (Cal. 2012). “); Evid. Code, §§ 1401, 1530.) Further, “the views of individual legislators as to the meaning of a statute rarely, if ever, are relevant .”
Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 960 P.2d 513 (Cal. 1998). “) Moreover, some of the documents are not materials shown to have been available to and presumably reviewed by the Legislature when adoption of those statutes was under consideration. While the views of individual legislators as to the meaning of a statute rarely, if ever, are…”
Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Grp., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “2809-2816), an electronic signature has the same legal effect as a handwritten signature (Civ.”
People v. Seumanu, 355 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2015). “” (Evid. Code, § 1401, subd. (a).) “Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law.”
Espejo v. S. California Permanente Med. Grp., 41 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 497 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “) But “[i]n the face of Ruiz’s failure to recall signing the 2011 agreement, Moss Bros, had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the electronic signature was authentic (Evid.”
People v. Wilson, 484 P.3d 36 (Cal. 2021). “” (Evid. Code, § 1401, subd. (a).) “Authentication .”
People v. Lucas, 333 P.3d 587 (Cal. 2014). “(Evid. Code, § 1401.) A writing is admissible if a finding of authentication is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Tuchscher Dev. Enter., Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2244 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “) Using these evidentiary standards to determine whether TDE met its burden, we are compelled to disregard a substantial portion of TDE’s evidence.”
Osborne v. Todd Farm Serv., 247 Cal. App. 4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “) The trial court also correctly excluded appellant's proffered testimony that she saw Todd's delivery person with a delivery "ticket" or receipt identifying Berrington as the source of the hay bale.”
People v. Calhoun, 250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “Exhibit 35 is a collection of text messages to and from number (xxx) xxx-5542. Calhoun's counsel objected to the admission of any evidence of text messages from the (xxx) xxx-5542 cell phone to the Vortex cell phone or the ZTE cell phone on the ground the prosecutor failed to…”
Welco Elec., Inc. v. Mora, 223 Cal. App. 4th 202 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “) Evidence Code Section 1400 provides, “Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by…”
O'LASKEY v. Sortino, 224 Cal. App. 3d 241 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “This evidence does not suffice to authenticate the transcript, that is, to establish that the three-page transcript accurately reflects the content of the tape—and it is wholly insufficient to authenticate the tape itself.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.