section 664 presume in California

2014(Compare City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1025 [balancing test under catch-all exception of section 6255, subd. (a), favors privacy interests of citizens complaining about airport noise over public interest in disclosure] and Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 383, 399 ) [public entity has no obligation to obtain fund information from private investment firms] with International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th 319, 346 [peace officers' names and salary information not protected from CPRA disclosure under 8 exemption o

2014(Compare City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1025 [balancing test under catch-all exception of section 6255, subd. (a), favors privacy interests of citizens complaining about airport noise over public interest in disclosure] and Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 383, 399 ) [public entity has no obligation to obtain fund information from private investment firms] with International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th 319, 346 [peace officers' names and salary information not protected from CPRA disclosure under 8 exemption o

2014(Compare City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1025 [balancing test under catch-all exception of section 6255, subd. (a), favors privacy interests of citizens complaining about airport noise over public interest in disclosure] and Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 383, 399 ) [public entity has no obligation to obtain fund information from private investment firms] with International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th 319, 346 [peace officers' names and salary information not protected from CPRA disclosure under 8 exemption o

2014(Compare City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1025 [balancing test under catch-all exception of section 6255, subd. (a), favors privacy interests of citizens complaining about airport noise over public interest in disclosure] and Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 383, 399 ) [public entity has no obligation to obtain fund information from private investment firms] with International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th 319, 346 [peace officers' names and salary information not protected from CPRA disclosure under 8 exemption o

2021Waiver of Right to Appeal As S.S. recognizes, whether he waived his right to appeal the court’s order turns on an interpretation of the stipulation, and particularly the term “proceeding” as used in that document. “ ‘A stipulation is a contract . . . , and is sometimes said to be governed by the usual rules of construction of other contracts.’ ” (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 ; see also Chacon v. Litke (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1252 .) A contract must be interpreted as a whole (Civ. Code, § 1641 [“The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as

2021(Smith v. Smith (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 658, 662 ; People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 661 [on silent record and “in the absence of any showing that the readbacks did not in fact take place,” it 8 was reasonable to presume under Evidence Code section 664 that a court reporter reread testimony to the jury as instructed by the court].) I.

2015(Romero v. County of Santa Clara (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 700, 705 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 758 ].) Given the total absence of evidence that the superior court failed to assure that she was qualified, we must presume pursuant to Evidence Code section 664 that the superior court did determine in a timely manner that Commissioner Castro was qualified.

2015(Romero v. County of Santa Clara (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 700, 705 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 758 ].) Given the total absence of evidence that the superior court failed to assure that she was qualified, we must presume pursuant to Evidence Code section 664 that the superior court did determine in a timely manner that Commissioner Castro was qualified.

2013(People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [if defendant does not secure an evidentiary ruling, defendant does not preserve the point for appeal].) 3 To the extent defendant argues the issue cannot be forfeited because the Evidence Code creates a mandatory duty, her argument fails because we presume under Evidence Code section 664 that the court correctly performed its official duties.