Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bonzer v. City of Huntington Parkgreen2 sentences2014(Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1478-1479 .) Respondent’s inability to recollect receipt of Cardenas’s objections to the First Account is not evidence rebutting the presumption in Evidence Code section 641. 2013Code, § 641 presumption overcome by testimony of office manager about handling of incoming mail and that the letter mailed by defendants had never been received in the office]; see also Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1480-1481 [Evid. | 1 | 3 |
Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc.green2 sentences2019(Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 422 .) “Although the presumption disappears where . . . it is met with contradictory evidence, inferences may nevertheless be drawn from the same circumstances that gave rise to the presumption in the first place.” (Id. at p. 421.) Per the proofs of service attached to the 998 offers, plaintiffs were entitled to the presumption under Evidence Code section 641. 2005(Slater v. Kehoe (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 819, 832, fn. 12 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 790 ]; accord, Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 421-422 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) The presumption of Evidence Code section 641 properly applied here, unless rebutted by a denial of receipt. | 1 | 2 |
Otsuka v. Balanguegreen2 sentences2013Proc., § 2009.) In light of the presumption of Evidence Code section 641, this affidavit is sufficient to satisfy the court that all acts necessary to effect service were performed in a timely fashion and that actual delivery would occur "in the ordinary course of mail." (See Goodson v. The Bogerts, Inc. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 32, 39 ; Otsuka v. Balangue (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 788, 791 .) In response to MTS's argument regarding the tardiness of this appeal, Springfield filed a motion to augment the record (or, in the alternative, requesting that this court take evidence and/or judicial notice) on 1985In light of the presumption of Evidence Code section 641, these affidavits were sufficient to satisfy the trial court that all acts necessary to effect service had been performed in a timely fashion and that actual delivery would occur “in the ordinary course of mail.” (See Goodson v. The Bogerts, Inc. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 32, 39 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; Otsuka v. Balangue (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 788, 791 [ 208 P.2d 65 ].) While this presumption does not satisfy the requirements of section 417.20 for proof of service, 8 it fully satisfies the purposes of section 581a. *256 More than three years aft | 1 | 2 |
Goodson v. the Bogerts, Inc.green2 sentences2013Proc., § 2009.) In light of the presumption of Evidence Code section 641, this affidavit is sufficient to satisfy the court that all acts necessary to effect service were performed in a timely fashion and that actual delivery would occur "in the ordinary course of mail." (See Goodson v. The Bogerts, Inc. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 32, 39 ; Otsuka v. Balangue (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 788, 791 .) In response to MTS's argument regarding the tardiness of this appeal, Springfield filed a motion to augment the record (or, in the alternative, requesting that this court take evidence and/or judicial notice) on 1985In light of the presumption of Evidence Code section 641, these affidavits were sufficient to satisfy the trial court that all acts necessary to effect service had been performed in a timely fashion and that actual delivery would occur “in the ordinary course of mail.” (See Goodson v. The Bogerts, Inc. (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 32, 39 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 146 ]; Otsuka v. Balangue (1949) 92 Cal.App.2d 788, 791 [ 208 P.2d 65 ].) While this presumption does not satisfy the requirements of section 417.20 for proof of service, 8 it fully satisfies the purposes of section 581a. *256 More than three years aft | 1 | 2 |
In Re Jhgreen2 sentences2010Lack of a signed return receipt is not proof that *387 a parent did not receive a notice; Evidence Code section 641 provides a presumption that letters that are correctly addressed and properly mailed have been received in the ordinary course of mail. ( In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174 , 183-184 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) However, the law is otherwise regarding section 366.26 hearings. 2010Lack of a signed return receipt is not proof that *387 a parent did not receive a notice; Evidence Code section 641 provides a presumption that letters that are correctly addressed and properly mailed have been received in the ordinary course of mail. ( In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174 , 183-184 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) However, the law is otherwise regarding section 366.26 hearings. | 1 | 2 |
Slater v. Kehoegreen2 sentences2005(Slater v. Kehoe (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 819, 832, fn. 12 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 790 ]; accord, Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 421-422 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) The presumption of Evidence Code section 641 properly applied here, unless rebutted by a denial of receipt. 2005(Slater v. Kehoe (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 819, 832, fn. 12 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 790 ]; accord, Craig v. Brown & Root, Inc. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 416, 421-422 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) The presumption of Evidence Code section 641 properly applied here, unless rebutted by a denial of receipt. | 1 | 1 |
Ruffino v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences1998(See Ruffino v. City of Los Angeles (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 67, 69 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 765 ].) However, Ford’s evidence indicated that recall notices for 1975 trucks as a group were sent out from April 4 to 12, 1979. 1998(See Ruffino v. City of Los Angeles (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 67, 69 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 765 ].) However, Ford’s evidence indicated that recall notices for 1975 trucks as a group were sent out from April 4 to 12, 1979. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Glasser v. Glasser
green
1 sentence2013(Glasser v. Glasser (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1010-1011 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1994(Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court, supra, 38 Cal.3d 243 , 255.) In that case, as in this, no conflicting evidence or presumption was involved, and the presumption was therefore sufficient. 1994For example, the court held that section 415.40 service was proper because the summons and complaint were mailed as provided in that section and a return was filed which included a properly executed affidavit of service by mail even though the signed return receipts were not included with the original return of service. ( 38 Cal.3d at p. 256 .) This case supports plaintiff’s position. 5 In a passage applicable here, the court also held that the presumption of Evidence Code section 641 (that a letter is presumed to have been received in the ordinary course of the mail) was sufficient to satisfy | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.