90 California opinions name it 3 courts 1866–2026 16 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Nealgreen2 sentences2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten 2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten | 3 | 4 |
In Re Marriage of Lucasgreen2 sentences2018This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: "(a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. "(b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." The Legislature also abrogated the Lucas court's holding that "separate funds used to acquire a community asset were a gift to the community unless the party could prove an agreement otherwise" through the adoption 2018This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: "(a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. "(b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." The Legislature also abrogated the Lucas court's holding that "separate funds used to acquire a community asset were a gift to the community unless the party could prove an agreement otherwise" through the adoption | 3 | 3 |
Blumberg v. Minthornegreen2 sentences2015(Hogoboom & King, supra, ¶ 8:384, p. 8-139; Blumberg v. Minthorne (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392 ["under general rules of statutory construction, more specific statutes prevail over more general ones"].) Probate Code section 5305 provides: "(a) . . . [I]f parties to an account are married to each other, . . . their net contribution to the account is presumed to be and remain their community property. [¶] (b) Notwithstanding Sections 2581 and 2640 of the Family Code, the presumption established by this section is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by proof of eit 2015(Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide; Family Law supra, ¶ 8:384, p. 8-139 (rev. 2015); Blumberg v. Minthorne (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1392 [ 183 Cal.Rptr.3d 179 ] [“under general rules of statutory construction, more specific statutes prevail over more general ones”].) Probate Code section 5305 provides: “(a) [I]f parties to an account are married to each other, . . . their net contribution to the account is presumed to be and remain their community property. [¶] (b) Notwithstanding Sections 2581 and 2640 of the Family Code, the presumption established by this section is a presumption aff | 3 | 3 |
In re Martinezgreen2 sentences2022When, as here, a trial court “instructs a jury on two theories of guilt, one of which was legally correct and one legally incorrect, reversal is required unless there is a basis in the record to find that the verdict was based on a valid ground. [Citations.] [A defendant’s attempted] murder conviction must be reversed unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on the legally valid theory that [he] directly aided and abetted the [attempted] murder.” (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 167 , superseded on other issues by Senate Bill 1437, as stated in People 2018In this regard, we reiterate that appellant's burden here is to demonstrate a reasonable probability that a more favorable result would have been reached in the absence of the error ( People v. Gonzalez , supra , 5 Cal.5th at p. 195 , 233 Cal.Rptr.3d 791 , 418 P.3d 841 ), not that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence. ( In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216 , 1224, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 315 , 407 P.3d 1 .) Indeed, where the court errs in instructing the jury "on correct and incorrect theories of liability, the presumption is that the error affected the judgment: ' "Jurors are not general | 2 | 4 |
In Re Marriage of Hainesgreen2 sentences2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten 2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten | 2 | 3 |
In Re Marriage of Griniusgreen2 sentences2015This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or 9 The fact that Linda signed the promissory note, without more, "does not compel a finding in favor of the community." (In re Marriage of Grinius (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1179, 1188 (Grinius).) 27 other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." However, secti 2015This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or 9 The fact that Linda signed the promissory note, without more, "does not compel a finding in favor of the community." (In re Marriage of Grinius (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1179, 1188 (Grinius).) 27 other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." However, secti | 2 | 2 |
Conger v. Weavergreen2 sentences1965As was said in an early ease in this jurisdiction ‘One of the favorite and much indulged doctrines of the common law, is the doctrine of presumption. ’ (Conger v. Weaver, 6 Cal. 548, 556 [65 Am.Dec. 528].) At an early date, this state adopted the common law as ‘the rule of decision in all the courts of this state’ in so far as it was not repugnant to the federal Constitution or the Constitution or laws of this state. 1940As was said in an early case in this jurisdiction “One of the favorite and much indulged doctrines of the common law, is the doctrine of presumption.” (Conger v. Weaver, 6 Cal. 548, 556 [ 65 Am. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Chiured2 sentences2022When, as here, a trial court “instructs a jury on two theories of guilt, one of which was legally correct and one legally incorrect, reversal is required unless there is a basis in the record to find that the verdict was based on a valid ground. [Citations.] [A defendant’s attempted] murder conviction must be reversed unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on the legally valid theory that [he] directly aided and abetted the [attempted] murder.” (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 167 , superseded on other issues by Senate Bill 1437, as stated in People 2021(Cf. People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 167 [if trial court instructed on legally correct and legally incorrect theories of guilt, the presumption of error is 6 It was also error for the superior court to rely on portions of Mendoza’s testimony admitted only in Leater’s trial (notably, Mendoza’s testimony that Leater told her Polk shot the victims) to conclude Polk was the actual killer. | 1 | 4 |
In Re Marriage of Weavergreen2 sentences2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten 2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten | 1 | 4 |
Clark v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2019However, the law is now well-established that, once a showing has been made that someone at the adverse party's law firm possesses confidential attorney-client information materially related to the proceedings before the court, a rebuttable presumption arises that the information has been used or disclosed in the current employment. ( Complex Asbestos , supra , 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 596 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 732 .) "The presumption is a rule by necessity because the party seeking disqualification will be at a loss to prove what is known by the adversary's attorneys and legal staff." ( Ibid . ) Moreov 2019However, the law is now well-established that, once a showing has been made that someone at the adverse party's law firm possesses confidential attorney-client information materially related to the proceedings before the court, a rebuttable presumption arises that the information has been used or disclosed in the current employment. ( Complex Asbestos , supra , 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 596 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 732 .) "The presumption is a rule by necessity because the party seeking disqualification will be at a loss to prove what is known by the adversary's attorneys and legal staff." ( Ibid . ) Moreov | 1 | 3 |
In Re Marriage of Fabiangreen2 sentences2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten 2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten | 1 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Buolgreen2 sentences2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten 2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten | 1 | 2 |
People v. Dennisgreen1 sentence2026Accordingly, defendant has not overcome the presumption defense counsel acted within “the wide range of reasonable professional assistance .…” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 689 ; accord, People v. Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 541 .) Additionally, defendant has not established a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failure to pursue admission of such evidence, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1103 or otherwise, the result of the proceeding would have been different. | 1 | 1 |
Fund for Animals v. Nortongreen1 sentence2023(Id. at p. 1191.) Another federal decision distinguishing procedural harm from environmental harm is Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (8th Cir. 2011) 645 F.3d 978 , where the court stated the “record discloses both procedural and concrete, substantive environmental harms.” (Id. at p. 995; see Fund for Animals v. Norton (D.D.C. 2003) 281 F.Supp.2d 209, 222 [when combined with irreparable aesthetic injuries, procedural harm arising from a NEPA violation bolstered plaintiffs’ claim for a preliminary injunction].) One way to resolve the issue presented would be to adopt a presumption th | 1 | 1 |
| McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court of Orange Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marriage of Bonvinogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Walrath v. Walrathgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Escobar v. Floresgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Milton v. Perceptual Development Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| DP Pham LLC v. Cheadlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Dabbgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kempgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Fuiavagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Stowellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Bagreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re the Marriage of Perkalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Sullivangreen | 1 | 1 |
| BGJ ASSOCIATES, LLC v. Wilsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ramirez v. Sturdevantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| National Medical Transportation Network v. Deloitte & Touchegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Haycock v. Hughes Aircraft Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lara v. Nevittgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ceresino v. Fire Insurance Exchangegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Chue Vanggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Munoz v. City of Union Citygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Andradegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gonzalezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2026Accordingly, defendant has not overcome the presumption defense counsel acted within “the wide range of reasonable professional assistance .…” (Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 689 ; accord, People v. Dennis, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 541 .) Additionally, defendant has not established a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failure to pursue admission of such evidence, pursuant to Evidence Code section 1103 or otherwise, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 2023Ware has the burden of establishing “that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 687 .) Ware admits that it is “particularly challenging” to show ineffective assistance on direct appeal. | 6 | 2020–2026 |
In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation
green
2 sentences2024The presumption is a rule by necessity because the party seeking disqualification will be at a loss to prove what is known by the adversary’s attorneys and legal staff.’” (Shadow Traffic, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1084–1085, quoting In re Complex Asbestos Litigation, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 596 .) The rebuttable presumption of disclosure articulated in In re Complex Asbestos Litigation was held to apply in cases involving nonemployee experts. 2019However, the law is now well-established that, once a showing has been made that someone at the adverse party's law firm possesses confidential attorney-client information materially related to the proceedings before the court, a rebuttable presumption arises that the information has been used or disclosed in the current employment. ( Complex Asbestos , supra , 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 596 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 732 .) "The presumption is a rule by necessity because the party seeking disqualification will be at a loss to prove what is known by the adversary's attorneys and legal staff." ( Ibid . ) Moreov | 5 | 1994–2024 |
Griffin v. United States
green
2 sentences2017When, therefore, jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error.' " ( People v Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116 , 1125, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 365 , 847 P.2d 45 , quoting Griffin v. United States (1991) 502 U.S. 46 , 59, 112 S.Ct. 466 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 .) Of course, the presumption of error can be rebutted by a showing "beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on the legally valid theory." ( Chiu , supra , 59 Cal.4th at p. 167 , 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438 , 325 P.3d 2017When, therefore, jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error.' " ( People v Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116 , 1125, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 365 , 847 P.2d 45 , quoting Griffin v. United States (1991) 502 U.S. 46 , 59, 112 S.Ct. 466 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 .) Of course, the presumption of error can be rebutted by a showing "beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on the legally valid theory." ( Chiu , supra , 59 Cal.4th at p. 167 , 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438 , 325 P.3d | 3 | 2017–2018 |
People v. Guiton
green
2 sentences2017When, therefore, jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error.' " ( People v Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116 , 1125, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 365 , 847 P.2d 45 , quoting Griffin v. United States (1991) 502 U.S. 46 , 59, 112 S.Ct. 466 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 .) Of course, the presumption of error can be rebutted by a showing "beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on the legally valid theory." ( Chiu , supra , 59 Cal.4th at p. 167 , 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438 , 325 P.3d 2017When, therefore, jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error.' " ( People v Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116 , 1125, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 365 , 847 P.2d 45 , quoting Griffin v. United States (1991) 502 U.S. 46 , 59, 112 S.Ct. 466 , 116 L.Ed.2d 371 .) Of course, the presumption of error can be rebutted by a showing "beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on the legally valid theory." ( Chiu , supra , 59 Cal.4th at p. 167 , 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438 , 325 P.3d | 3 | 2017–2018 |
In Re the Marriage of Weaver
green
2 sentences2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten 2016This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of proof and may be rebutted by either of the following: [¶] (a) A clear statement in the deed or other documentary evidence of title by which the property is acquired that the property is separate property and not community property. [¶] (b) Proof that the parties have made a written agreement that the property is separate property." (§ 2581.) As a leading treatise explains, "[t]he § 2581 presumption attaches to any type of joint title acquisition by spouses during marriage (real and personal property, whether tenancy in common, joint ten | 3 | 2016–2016 |
Winship v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1935Co., 170 Mass. 464 [ 49 N. E. 647 ], and similar cases, there is, of course, no room for the application of the doctrine of presumption. 1935Co., 170 Mass. 464 [ 49 N. E. 647 ], and similar cases, there is, of course, no room for the application of the doctrine of presumption. | 3 | 1917–1935 |
Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals
green
2 sentences2016Briefly, Fahlen said this: HCQIA cannot provide blanket immunity to a hospital in a section 1278.5 action because even if HCQIA applies to a given peer review proceeding, ―at a minimum‖ it still allows ―such remedies as reinstatement and injunctive relief.‖ (Fahlen, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 686 .) Moreover – and we find this particularly significant given the anti-SLAPP procedural posture of the case before us – the Fahlen court recognized the immunity afforded by HCQIA is only presumptive and hence rebuttable: ―Moreover, it allows the presumption of immunity to be rebutted by a preponderance o 2016Briefly, Fahlen said this: HCQIA cannot provide blanket immunity to a hospital in a section 1278.5 action because even if HCQIA applies to a given peer review proceeding, “at a minimum” it still allows “such remedies as reinstatement and injunctive relief.” (Fahlen, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 686 .) Moreover—and we find this particularly significant given the anti-SLAPP procedural posture of the case before us—the Fahlen court recognized the immunity afforded by HCQIA is only presumptive and hence rebuttable: “Moreover, it allows the presumption of immunity to be rebutted by a preponderance of ev | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Weeks
green
1 sentence2026(Cf. People v. Weeks (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 882 , 4 According to the victim’s trial testimony, an unknown person yelled out from across the street when she was in the alley on the ground—but “it was . . . dark shadowy.” 3 where the defendant waived that right by proceeding to trial with retained counsel.5) Finally, we are not persuaded by Stortz’s argument that we cannot presume Stortz abandoned his Faretta motion because the trial court “conditioned any later motion on appellant meeting a condition that is constitutionally irrelevant under Faretta: acquiring enough ‘foundational knowledge’ to | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Kenner
green
1 sentence2026A “waiver of the right to self-representation may be presumed from conduct.” (People v. Kenner (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 56, 61 .) Here, when the trial court first denied the Faretta motion, the court specifically told Stortz he could “bring this motion again.” Stortz’s subsequent conduct—failing to renew his motion and proceeding to trial with court-appointed counsel— provides ample ground for a presumption of waiver of the right to self- representation in his case. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Coffey v. Shiomoto
green
1 sentence2026(Coffey, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1211 .) This shifted the burden back to the DMV. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Jameson v. Desta
green
1 sentence2025All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’”].) Second, and for this reason, appellant bears the burden of affirmatively establishing reversible error. ( Jameson, supra, at p. 609 .) This latter principle is “‘not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” (Ibid.) “‘“[I]f the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.”’” (Ibid.) Given this p | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Fleming
green
1 sentence2025When, therefore, jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error.” ’ ” (People v. Fleming (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 754, 769 , quoting In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216, 1224 .) Here, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury did not rely on CALCRIM No. 416 when it convicted Virgen of murder. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen
green
1 sentence2024If the presumption applies, the government “must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (Bruen, supra, 597 U.S. at p. 24 .) As explained in People v. Alexander (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 469 , because the Second Amendment extends the right to bear arms only to law- abiding citizens, convicted felons “are not among ‘the people’ who have an individual right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment.” (Id. at p. 479 [upholding sections 29800, subdivision (a)(1) and 30305 subdivision (a)(1), which bar felons | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2024The presumption is a rule by necessity because the party seeking disqualification will be at a loss to prove what is known by the adversary’s attorneys and legal staff.’” (Shadow Traffic, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1084–1085, quoting In re Complex Asbestos Litigation, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 596 .) The rebuttable presumption of disclosure articulated in In re Complex Asbestos Litigation was held to apply in cases involving nonemployee experts. 2024(Shadow Traffic, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1085 .) The Shadow Traffic court observed that “the thrust of the [In re Complex Asbestos Litigation] opinion is to implement the important public policy of protecting against the disclosure of confidential information and the potential exploitation of such information by an adversary.” (Ibid.) “As the purpose of this presumption is to implement the public policy of protecting confidential communications, the presumption is one affecting the burden of proof. [Citation.] The effect of this type of presumption ‘is to impose upon the party against whom | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
green
1 sentence2023(Id. at p. 1191.) Another federal decision distinguishing procedural harm from environmental harm is Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (8th Cir. 2011) 645 F.3d 978 , where the court stated the “record discloses both procedural and concrete, substantive environmental harms.” (Id. at p. 995; see Fund for Animals v. Norton (D.D.C. 2003) 281 F.Supp.2d 209, 222 [when combined with irreparable aesthetic injuries, procedural harm arising from a NEPA violation bolstered plaintiffs’ claim for a preliminary injunction].) One way to resolve the issue presented would be to adopt a presumption th | 1 | 2023–2023 |
San Bernardino County Flood Control District v. Grabowski
green
2 sentences2023(San Bernardino County Flood Control Dist. v. Grabowski (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 885, 897 .) Section 1245.255, subdivision (a) provides for “judicial review of the validity of the resolution” before commencement of the eminent domain action by petition for writ of mandate under section 1085, or after commencement of the action by objection to the right to take. 2023(E.g., San Bernardino County Flood Control Dist. v. Grabowski, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 898 .) While a presumption affecting the burden of proof and a presumption of affecting the burden of producing evidence are different, they are also related, and we see no basis for concluding that only one permits a substantive challenge to a public necessity element or the more necessary use element separate from challenging the validity of a resolution of necessity. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Frantz v. San Luis Medical Clinic green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Lewis green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Aledamat green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Shea v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Moeller v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Kirk v. First American Title Insurance green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Shadonna C. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Gonzalez green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Brodie v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Hudson green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Tuggles green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re NS green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Richardson green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Semien green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Sparks v. Sparks green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.