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 1969–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. Time Warner, Inc.green2 sentences2021Because these types of evidentiary rulings “involve an exercise of discretion, . . . it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance.” (Hall v. Time Warner, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1348 .) “The trial court must rule on written evidentiary objections made prior to and oral objections made at the hearing on a motion.” (Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 611, 630 [anti-SLAPP appeal].) “ ‘When that duty is not performed, appellate courts are left with the nebulous task of determining whether the ruling that was purported 2020(See Hall v. Time Warner, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1347-1348 [“Rulings on evidentiary objections involve an exercise of discretion, and it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance”].) Thus, on remand, in addition to considering the merits of plaintiff’s opposition, we also direct the trial court to 16 determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a continuation of the hearing to allow for jurisdictional discovery. | 3 | 5 |
Sambrano v. City of San Diegogreen2 sentences2021Because these types of evidentiary rulings “involve an exercise of discretion, . . . it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance.” (Hall v. Time Warner, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1348 .) “The trial court must rule on written evidentiary objections made prior to and oral objections made at the hearing on a motion.” (Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 611, 630 [anti-SLAPP appeal].) “ ‘When that duty is not performed, appellate courts are left with the nebulous task of determining whether the ruling that was purported 2007Rulings on evidentiary objections involve an exercise of discretion, and it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance. 3 (Cf. Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1217-1218 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 411 ] [summary judgment motion]; Sambrano v. City of San Diego (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 225, 235-236 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 151 ] [same]; but see Thomas v. Quintero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 656 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 619 ] [stated that because the ruling on a special motion to strike is reviewed de novo, the reviewing court | 3 | 3 |
Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agencygreen2 sentences2021Because these types of evidentiary rulings “involve an exercise of discretion, . . . it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance.” (Hall v. Time Warner, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1348 .) “The trial court must rule on written evidentiary objections made prior to and oral objections made at the hearing on a motion.” (Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 611, 630 [anti-SLAPP appeal].) “ ‘When that duty is not performed, appellate courts are left with the nebulous task of determining whether the ruling that was purported 2015First, rulings on the evidentiary objections “ ‘can involve a number of considerations more suited to the trial court than the appellate courts, including an exercise of discretion in establishing the record to be reviewed de novo.’ ” (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1217 (Parkview Villas); see Hall, supra, at p. 1348 [“Rulings on evidentiary objections involve an exercise of discretion, and it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance.”]; Martin, supra, at p. 630 [same].) It is for this 18 rea | 2 | 2 |
Parkview Villas Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2015First, rulings on the evidentiary objections “ ‘can involve a number of considerations more suited to the trial court than the appellate courts, including an exercise of discretion in establishing the record to be reviewed de novo.’ ” (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1217 (Parkview Villas); see Hall, supra, at p. 1348 [“Rulings on evidentiary objections involve an exercise of discretion, and it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance.”]; Martin, supra, at p. 630 [same].) It is for this 18 rea 2007Rulings on evidentiary objections involve an exercise of discretion, and it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance. 3 (Cf. Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1217-1218 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 411 ] [summary judgment motion]; Sambrano v. City of San Diego (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 225, 235-236 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 151 ] [same]; but see Thomas v. Quintero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 656 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 619 ] [stated that because the ruling on a special motion to strike is reviewed de novo, the reviewing court | 2 | 2 |
Birkner v. Lamgreen2 sentences2011Rulings on evidentiary objections involve an exercise of discretion, and it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance. [Citations.] Although the trial court’s failure to rule on the objections is understandable in light of its conclusion, the trial court on remand must rule on the evidentiary objections and then decide whether [the plaintiff] has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of her claims. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 1347-1348, fn. omitted; accord, Birkner v. Lam (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 275, 286 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 ]; but see Tho 2011Rulings on evidentiary objections involve an exercise of discretion, and it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance. [Citations.] Although the trial court’s failure to rule on the objections is understandable in light of its conclusion, the trial court on remand must rule on the evidentiary objections and then decide whether [the plaintiff] has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of her claims. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 1347-1348, fn. omitted; accord, Birkner v. Lam (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 275, 286 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 ]; but see Tho | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rigogreen2 sentences2008(Cf. People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409, 412-415 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ] [doctor may not give postarrest recommendation to bless prior use].) 5 Third, from these two aspects of the text, as well as logic, we draw a further inference: a primary caregiver must establish he or she satisfies the responsibility clause based on evidence independent of the administration of medical marijuana. 2008(Cf. People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409, 412-415 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 ] [doctor may not give postarrest recommendation to bless prior use].) 5 Third, from these two aspects of the text, as well as logic, we draw a further inference: a primary caregiver must establish he or she satisfies the responsibility clause based on evidence independent of the administration of medical marijuana. | 1 | 1 |
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Insurancegreen2 sentences1998Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, 669-693 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 , 913 P.2d 878 ], and fixed the two insurers’ responsibility for defense and indemnity equally. 1998Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, 669-693 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 , 913 P.2d 878 ], and fixed the two insurers’ responsibility for defense and indemnity equally. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reevesgreen2 sentences1969(People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 774-775 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 691 , 415 P.2d 35 ].) Our.,adversary system is “built upon the belief that truth will best be served if defense counsel is given the maximum possible leeway” to *852 present his client’s defense. 1969(People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766, 774-775 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 691 , 415 P.2d 35 ].) Our.,adversary system is “built upon the belief that truth will best be served if defense counsel is given the maximum possible leeway” to *852 present his client’s defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Quinterogreen2 sentences2011Rulings on evidentiary objections involve an exercise of discretion, and it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance. [Citations.] Although the trial court’s failure to rule on the objections is understandable in light of its conclusion, the trial court on remand must rule on the evidentiary objections and then decide whether [the plaintiff] has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of her claims. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 1347-1348, fn. omitted; accord, Birkner v. Lam (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 275, 286 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 ]; but see Tho 2011Rulings on evidentiary objections involve an exercise of discretion, and it is the trial court’s responsibility to rule on the objections in the first instance. [Citations.] Although the trial court’s failure to rule on the objections is understandable in light of its conclusion, the trial court on remand must rule on the evidentiary objections and then decide whether [the plaintiff] has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of her claims. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 1347-1348, fn. omitted; accord, Birkner v. Lam (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 275, 286 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 190 ]; but see Tho | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Collier v. Harris
green
1 sentence2016We think it best that the able and experienced trial judge decide the issue.” (Collier v. Harris, supra, at p. 58 .) 30 DISPOSITION The trial court’s order is reversed insofar as it pertains to the first and sixth causes of action. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Hochanadel
green
2 sentences2009(See § 11362.7, subd. (d).) "While the MMPA identifies certain individuals who can be valid primary caregivers, i.e., persons designated by more than one person, all of whom reside in the same city or county, the person (or entity) [designated as the primary caregiver] must still meet the requirement of `consistently' assuming responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person." ( People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997 , 1015-1016 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 ], citing People v. Mentch, supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 283 .) D. 2009(See § 11362.7, subd. (d).) "While the MMPA identifies certain individuals who can be valid primary caregivers, i.e., persons designated by more than one person, all of whom reside in the same city or county, the person (or entity) [designated as the primary caregiver] must still meet the requirement of `consistently' assuming responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person." ( People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997 , 1015-1016 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 ], citing People v. Mentch, supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 283 .) D. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Windus
green
2 sentences2009In some situations, the formation of a bona fide caregiving relationship and the onset of assistance in taking medical marijuana may be contemporaneous, as with a cancer patient entering chemotherapy who has a recommendation for medical marijuana use and has a live-in or home-visit nurse to assist with all aspects of his or her health care, including marijuana consumption. [Citation.] . . . [However,] [w]hat is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale." 2009In some situations, the formation of a bona fide caregiving relationship and the onset of assistance in taking medical marijuana may be contemporaneous, as with a cancer patient entering chemotherapy who has a recommendation for medical marijuana use and has a live-in or home-visit nurse to assist with all aspects of his or her health care, including marijuana consumption. [Citation.] . . . [However,] [w]hat is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale." | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Frazier
green
2 sentences2009In some situations, the formation of a bona fide caregiving relationship and the onset of assistance in taking medical marijuana may be contemporaneous, as with a cancer patient entering chemotherapy who has a recommendation for medical marijuana use and has a live-in or home-visit nurse to assist with all aspects of his or her health care, including marijuana consumption. [Citation.] . . . [However,] [w]hat is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale." 2009In some situations, the formation of a bona fide caregiving relationship and the onset of assistance in taking medical marijuana may be contemporaneous, as with a cancer patient entering chemotherapy who has a recommendation for medical marijuana use and has a live-in or home-visit nurse to assist with all aspects of his or her health care, including marijuana consumption. [Citation.] . . . [However,] [w]hat is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale." | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Mentch
green
2 sentences2009In some situations, the formation of a bona fide caregiving relationship and the onset of assistance in taking medical marijuana may be contemporaneous, as with a cancer patient entering chemotherapy who has a recommendation for medical marijuana use and has a live-in or home-visit nurse to assist with all aspects of his or her health care, including marijuana consumption. [Citation.] . . . [However,] [w]hat is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale." 2009(See § 11362.7, subd. (d).) "While the MMPA identifies certain individuals who can be valid primary caregivers, i.e., persons designated by more than one person, all of whom reside in the same city or county, the person (or entity) [designated as the primary caregiver] must still meet the requirement of `consistently' assuming responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person." ( People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997 , 1015-1016 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 ], citing People v. Mentch, supra , 45 Cal.4th at p. 283 .) D. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.