summary hearing in California

2026(See Schmier v. Supreme Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 707 .) Consequently, defendants have standing to raise section 1.1 of article I of the California Constitution as a basis for concluding the CC&Rs’ prohibition of abortion clinics is “unreasonable.” (§§ 5875, subd. (a), 6856, subd. (a).) F. Summary The presumption that restrictions in CC&Rs are valid has been rebutted at this stage of the proceedings.

2026(See Schmier v. Supreme Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 707 .) Consequently, defendants have standing to raise section 1.1 of article I of the California Constitution as a basis for concluding the CC&Rs’ prohibition of abortion clinics is “unreasonable.” (§§ 5875, subd. (a), 6856, subd. (a).) F. Summary The presumption that restrictions in CC&Rs are valid has been rebutted at this stage of the proceedings.

2023We find persuasive the summary and analysis of this legislative history set forth in Lopez v. Stages of Beauty, LLC (S.D.Cal. 2018) 307 F.Supp.3d 1058 (Lopez)—a case in which plaintiff ’s counsel advanced the same arguments it makes here.

2015(People v. Weber (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1058-1059 ; see also Iowa v. Tovar (2004) 541 U.S. 77, 92 .) Defendant contends that his posttrial invocation of his Faretta rights was “not free, voluntary, knowing, or intelligent because it was the product of the trial court’s error in not conducting a Marsden hearing and because the court’s summary inquiry failed to establish such a waiver.” We disagree on both points.

2013As noted by this court in a prior decision, an inmate “may choose to end his active prison gang membership and placement in segregated housing through one of two formal routes: (1) he becomes an ‘inactive’ gang member after six years of noninvolvement in gang activity; or (2) he completes the ‘debriefing process,’ demonstrating that he has dropped out of the gang.” 7 (Efstathiou, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 731 .) SUMMARY We issue this opinion in part to provide guidance for future cases.

2013One of the purposes underlying Levy's strict party-signature requirement is to minimize at a summary hearing the possibility of conflicting interpretations of the settlement agreement and of the validity of each party's acceptance of the agreement. 13 (See Levy, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 585 .) In this case of an initial signature by an agent followed by an attempted contract revocation by the opposing side, the court was required to resolve various preliminary factual questions related to the contractual enforcement issues, such as the nature and scope of the agency and the validity of the revo

2008Code, § 1120 [“Evidence otherwise admissible or subject to discovery outside of a mediation . . . shall not be or become inadmissible or protected from disclosure solely by reason of its introduction or use in a mediation . . . .”]; see Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 407, 417 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 643 , 93 P.3d 260 ]; Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137, 157-158 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ].) Foot Locker’s payroll records, for example, if relevant to the quantification of the claims being settled, are subject to discovery and may be introduced in opposition to the settlement e

2006The court concluded that while the intent to kill one person transfers to the unintended killing of others, the intent to kill does not transfer to victims who are not killed and, thus, cannot be a basis for a finding of attempted murder. { Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 326-331.) The court cited with approval this summary of the rule: “ ‘[W]here a single act is alleged to be an attempt on two persons’ lives, the intent to kill should be evaluated independently as to each victim, and the jury should not be instructed to transfer intent from one to another.’ [Citation.]” {Bland, supra, 28 Cal.

2002Bren Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831, 835 , 187 Cal.Rptr. 449 , 654 P.2d 219 .) If ho party takes an appeal, the commissioner's decision will be deemed a judgment, final immediately and enforceable as a judgment in a civil action.

2002Bren Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831, 835 , 187 Cal.Rptr. 449 , 654 P.2d 219 .) If ho party takes an appeal, the commissioner's decision will be deemed a judgment, final immediately and enforceable as a judgment in a civil action.

1993In The Pines v. City of Santa Monica (1981) 29 Cal.3d 656 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 630 P.2d 521 ], the city taxed condominium conversions at the rate of $1,000 per unit.

1993In The Pines v. City of Santa Monica (1981) 29 Cal.3d 656 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 336 , 630 P.2d 521 ], the city taxed condominium conversions at the rate of $1,000 per unit.

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1991(See, e.g., People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [error for court to retain juror without a hearing after being put on notice juror using drugs and alcohol and possibly incapable of deliberating]; People v. Hamilton (1963) 60 Cal.2d 105 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 4 , 383 P.2d 412 ] [on a charge of bias the court has a limited discretion to determine the facts show an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality]; People v. *255 McNeal (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 830 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 706 ] [failure to

1980(Moura v. State Bar (1941) 18 Cal.2d 31, 32 [ 112 P.2d 629 ].) In the usual case, a summary of the factors in mitigation will provide an adequate record to enable this court to determine whether to follow the board’s recommendation.

1980Although this court bears the ultimate responsibility for determining the degree of discipline to impose, the recommendations of the State Bar Disciplinary Board are accorded great weight ( In re Duggan (1976) 17 Cal.3d 416, 423 [ 130 Cal. Rptr. 715 , 551 P.2d 19 ]), and will ordinarily be followed by this court. ( Moura v. State Bar (1941) 18 Cal.2d 31, 32 [ 112 P.2d 629 ].) In the usual case, a summary of the factors in mitigation will provide an adequate record to enable this court to determine whether to follow the board's recommendation.

1968Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 57 Cal.2d 115 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 367 *527 P.2d 409], it was held that the obligation of the panel is to achieve a substantial understanding of the record and it may do so by reference to the referee’s summary of the testimony where it is not claimed that the referee’s summary is in error.

1968Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 57 Cal.2d 115 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 367 *527 P.2d 409], it was held that the obligation of the panel is to achieve a substantial understanding of the record and it may do so by reference to the referee’s summary of the testimony where it is not claimed that the referee’s summary is in error.

1966We conclude therefore that there are no valid questions of procedure under which the order of commitment may be successfully attacked in this case, and that under such circumstances the normal procedure would be to affirm the order and to advise the defendant that as to the question of insufficiency of the evidence, as pointed out in In re Trummer, supra, 60 Cal.2d 658, 665 , the remedy of a person who believes he has been illegally committed under the provisions of the narcotic addiction statutes is to demand trial by jury or by the court “on the issue of his narcotic addiction at the time of

1934(Ex parte McLaughlin, 41 Cal. 211 [ 10 Am.