matter for further hearing in California

2022(In re K.R., supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 707−708.) 12.

2021In K.R., we remanded the matter for further inquiry because, unlike in the instant case, the record indicated that the paternal aunt, paternal grandparents, and paternal great- grandmother would likely provide additional information that would assist in determining whether the children had Indian ancestry. ( K.R., supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 707-708.) In A.C., supra, 65 Cal.App.5th 1060 , we did not remand the matter for further inquiry because we concluded there was no prejudicial error.

2014Then, on its own motion, the court vacated the order of May 25, 2011, and set the matter for further hearing, including further briefing on Greenspan v. LADT LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 ], and the issue of “whether the appropriate procedure would be to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion at which each side could call and cross-examine witnesses.” Both parties submitted additional briefing. 1 At the continued hearing on June 23, 2011, the court ruled that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply.

2014Then, on its own motion, the court vacated the order of May 25, 2011, and set the matter for further hearing, including further briefing on Greenspan v. LADT LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 ], and the issue of “whether the appropriate procedure would be to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion at which each side could call and cross-examine witnesses.” Both parties submitted additional briefing. 1 At the continued hearing on June 23, 2011, the court ruled that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply.

2021Caltrans declined the offer. 24 committing at any time in the future some new violation unrelated to the original allegations,” though it may “restrain the person from committing similar or related unlawful activity.” (City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 416 .) The question of whether an injunction impermissibly requires a party to obey the law depends on the wording of the injunction and the context in which it issues.

2015In a February 15, 2013 letter to the Department and AHF, Chief ALJ Stevenson stated she was considering rejecting ALJ Nelsen’s proposed decision and “either alternating it or remanding this matter for further hearing and a revised decision.” On March 1, 2013 Chief ALJ Stevenson issued an order entitled, “Rejection of Proposed Decision and Remand to Take Additional Evidence,” citing Government Code section 11517, Medicare determines whether it will pay all or part of the fee (rates of reimbursement are based on the particular medical procedure and the geographic area in which the services are r

2013Proc., § 1088; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223 , disapproved on another ground in Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 724, fn. 4 ; Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35 .) DISPOSITION Let a writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate that portion of its October 10, 2012, order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to petitioner Weir, and set the matter for further hearing.

2013Proc., § 1088; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223 , disapproved on another ground in Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 724, fn. 4 ; Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35 .) DISPOSITION Let a writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate that portion of its October 10, 2012, order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to petitioner Weir, and set the matter for further hearing.

2004Corp. v. Union Bank (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 137 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 735 ] (System Inv.).

2004Corp. v. Union Bank (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 137 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 735 ] (System Inv.).

1968In dismissing this petition the respondent court relied on Estate of Baird, 135 Cal.App.2d 333 [ 287 P.2d 365 ], where it is said (pp. 341-342) : “The relation of Margaret as a beneficiary of the trust terminated on her death.

1968In dismissing this petition the respondent court relied on Estate of Baird, 135 Cal.App.2d 333 [ 287 P.2d 365 ], where it is said (pp. 341-342) : “The relation of Margaret as a beneficiary of the trust terminated on her death.