blatant violation in California

2026(See, e.g., People v. Boyette, supra, 29 Cal.4th p. 462.) The court did not abuse its discretion when it discharged Juror No. 9.

2020(See In re Zacharia D.[, supra,] 6 Cal.4th [at p.] 451.) ‘In dependency proceedings . . . the purpose of section 7611 . . . is to determine whether the alleged father has demonstrated a sufficient commitment to his parental responsibilities to be afforded rights not afforded to natural fathers—the rights to reunification services and custody of the child.’ (Jerry P., supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 804 .) If an individual can qualify for presumed father status based on his good deeds consistent with parental responsibilities, it follows that under certain circumstances he can be disqualified by re

2007(Burch v. George, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 267 ; Estate of Wolfe, supra, 48 Cal.2d 570 ; Estate of Waters, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 81 ; Estate of Orwitz, supra, 229 Cal.App.2d at pp. 769-771; Estate of Lufkin, supra, 131 Cal. 291 .) *453 DISPOSITION The order is reversed insofar as it holds that an application for an order to show cause for modification of Richard’s child support obligations would not violate the no contest clause.

2007(Burch v. George, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 267 ; Estate of Wolfe, supra, 48 Cal.2d 570 ; Estate of Waters, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 81 ; Estate of Orwitz, supra, 229 Cal.App.2d at pp. 769-771; Estate of Lufkin, supra, 131 Cal. 291 .) *453 DISPOSITION The order is reversed insofar as it holds that an application for an order to show cause for modification of Richard’s child support obligations would not violate the no contest clause.

2007(Burch v. George, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 267 ; Estate of Wolfe, supra, 48 Cal.2d 570 ; Estate of Waters, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 81 ; Estate of Orwitz, supra, 229 Cal.App.2d at pp. 769-771; Estate of Lufkin, supra, 131 Cal. 291 .) *453 DISPOSITION The order is reversed insofar as it holds that an application for an order to show cause for modification of Richard’s child support obligations would not violate the no contest clause.

2007(Burch v. George, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 267 ; Estate of Wolfe, supra, 48 Cal.2d 570 ; Estate of Waters, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 81 ; Estate of Orwitz, supra, 229 Cal.App.2d at pp. 769-771; Estate of Lufkin, supra, 131 Cal. 291 .) *453 DISPOSITION The order is reversed insofar as it holds that an application for an order to show cause for modification of Richard’s child support obligations would not violate the no contest clause.

1993Not only is Renfrow factually dissimilar, but the opinion explicitly limits its misleadingly unqualified statement that the dog alert “does not provide reasonable cause to believe the student actually possesses the drug.” ( 475 F.Supp. at p. 1024 , italics in original.) In fact, the court signalled that its conclusion was motivated by the blatant violation of the students’ rights, and observed, “[tjhis Court can conceive of many situations where the alert of a trained dog alone can provide the necessary reasonable cause for a more complete but private body search.” ( 475 F.Supp. at p. 1027 .)

1993Not only is Renfrow factually dissimilar, but the opinion explicitly limits its misleadingly unqualified statement that the dog alert “does not provide reasonable cause to believe the student actually possesses the drug.” ( 475 F.Supp. at p. 1024 , italics in original.) In fact, the court signalled that its conclusion was motivated by the blatant violation of the students’ rights, and observed, “[tjhis Court can conceive of many situations where the alert of a trained dog alone can provide the necessary reasonable cause for a more complete but private body search.” ( 475 F.Supp. at p. 1027 .)

1985Such barbarous acts can in no wise come under the heading of "accepted medical practices." The danger of serious permanent injury and even fatality is "common knowledge." ( People v. Sanders, supra, 268 Cal. App.2d 802, 805, fn. 1 .) Rather, as People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d 378 , holds, it is a blatant violation of due process to engage in such procedures.

1985Such barbarous acts can in no wise come under the heading of “accepted medical practices.” The danger of serious permanent injury and even fatality is “common knowledge.” (People v. Sanders, supra, 268 Cal.App.2d 802, 805, fn. 1 .) Rather, as People v. Parham, supra, 60 Cal.2d 378 , holds, it is a blatant violation of due process to engage in such procedures.

1979Just as grievous is what we find to be a blatant violation of the well-known rule of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 ], proscribing prosecutorial comment on the failure of one criminally accused to testify on his own behalf.

1979Just as grievous is what we find to be a blatant violation of the well-known rule of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 ], proscribing prosecutorial comment on the failure of one criminally accused to testify on his own behalf.

1978People v. Ramirez (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 154 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] and People v. Superior Court (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 109 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 778 ] and others cited by the majority are overly extended in reaching for supportive authority.

1978People v. Ramirez (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 154 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] and People v. Superior Court (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 109 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 778 ] and others cited by the majority are overly extended in reaching for supportive authority.

1978People v. Ramirez (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 154 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] and People v. Superior Court (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 109 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 778 ] and others cited by the majority are overly extended in reaching for supportive authority.

1978People v. Ramirez (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 154 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 104 ] and People v. Superior Court (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 109 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 778 ] and others cited by the majority are overly extended in reaching for supportive authority.