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 1 courts 1994–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eneaji v. Ubboegreen2 sentences2015(See Eneaji v. Ubboe, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 1464 [“[T]he trial court’s conclusion that the absence of further abuse in the three-year period was a sufficient basis for denying renewal is not supported by the law.”].) The trial court here, however, did not require Cueto to show that Dozier violated the restraining order. 2015(See Eneaji v. Ubboe, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 1464 [“[T]he trial court’s conclusion that the absence of further abuse in the three-year period was a sufficient basis for denying renewal is not supported by the law.”].) The trial court here, however, did not require Cueto to show that Dozier violated the restraining order. | 2 | 2 |
Cueto v. Dozier CA1/2green2 sentences2026Indeed[,] the fact a protective order has proved effective is a good reason for seeking its renewal.’ (Ritchie[, supra,] 115 Cal.App.4th [at p. 1284.) Thus, ‘a trial court errs when it requires a party to show a violation of the restraining order as a condition to renewing that order.’ (Cueto, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 561 .) [¶] Instead, a ‘trial court should renew the protective order, if, and only if, it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected party entertains a “reasonable apprehension” of future abuse. 2025(See Cueto v. Dozier (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 550, 561 [“a trial court errs when it requires a party to show a violation of the restraining order as a condition to renewing that order”].) But there is nothing in the record before us that suggests the trial court required appellant to show further harassment, and “[a]bsent any evidence to the contrary, we presume that the trial court applied the correct legal standard.” (Ibid.) Appellant also argues he presented “undisputed evidence” of “repeated acts of harassment and threats of violence by [respondent],” and, relatedly, “[n]o substantial eviden | 1 | 4 |
Ritchie v. Konradgreen2 sentences2018Indeed[,] the fact a protective order has proved effective is a good *99 reason for seeking its renewal." ( Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 , 1284, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 387 ( Ritchie ).) Thus, "a trial court errs when it requires a party to show a violation of the restraining order as a condition to renewing that order." ( Cueto , supra , 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 561 , 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 .) Instead, a "trial court should renew the protective order, if, and only if, it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected party entertains a 'reasonable apprehension' of future abuse. 2018Indeed[,] the fact a protective order has proved effective is a good *99 reason for seeking its renewal." ( Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 , 1284, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 387 ( Ritchie ).) Thus, "a trial court errs when it requires a party to show a violation of the restraining order as a condition to renewing that order." ( Cueto , supra , 241 Cal.App.4th at p. 561 , 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 .) Instead, a "trial court should renew the protective order, if, and only if, it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected party entertains a 'reasonable apprehension' of future abuse. | 1 | 4 |
J.E. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2024(See Robert S. v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1417 , 1421-1422.) However, “discovery practice in delinquency proceedings generally has been derived from, and parallels, that in adult criminal cases.” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, 54 .) Discovery in juvenile delinquency proceedings is also guided by California Rules of Court, rule 5.546.2 (J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1334, fn. 5 .) 2 California Rules of Court, rule 5.546 provides, in part, as follows: “(a) General purpose [¶] This rule must be liberally construed in favor of informal di | 1 | 1 |
People v. Verdugogreen1 sentence2024(See Robert S. v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1417 , 1421-1422.) However, “discovery practice in delinquency proceedings generally has been derived from, and parallels, that in adult criminal cases.” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, 54 .) Discovery in juvenile delinquency proceedings is also guided by California Rules of Court, rule 5.546.2 (J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1334, fn. 5 .) 2 California Rules of Court, rule 5.546 provides, in part, as follows: “(a) General purpose [¶] This rule must be liberally construed in favor of informal di | 1 | 1 |
People v. Welchred1 sentence2024(See Robert S. v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1417 , 1421-1422.) However, “discovery practice in delinquency proceedings generally has been derived from, and parallels, that in adult criminal cases.” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, 54 .) Discovery in juvenile delinquency proceedings is also guided by California Rules of Court, rule 5.546.2 (J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1334, fn. 5 .) 2 California Rules of Court, rule 5.546 provides, in part, as follows: “(a) General purpose [¶] This rule must be liberally construed in favor of informal di | 1 | 1 |
People v. Danielsgreen1 sentence2022(People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991 (lead opn. of Cuéllar, J.); accord, id. at p. 1018 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.).) appellant exhibiting “symptoms,” including “thought disorganization,” “long pauses before answering questions,” and appearing “distracted.” The psychologist “often had to repeat questions.” 4 This case is like People v. Blancett (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1200 , in which we reversed an MDO commitment order on the ground that Blancett’s jury trial waiver was not knowing and intelligent. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Blancettgreen1 sentence2022(People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991 (lead opn. of Cuéllar, J.); accord, id. at p. 1018 (conc. & dis. opn. of Corrigan, J.).) appellant exhibiting “symptoms,” including “thought disorganization,” “long pauses before answering questions,” and appearing “distracted.” The psychologist “often had to repeat questions.” 4 This case is like People v. Blancett (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1200 , in which we reversed an MDO commitment order on the ground that Blancett’s jury trial waiver was not knowing and intelligent. | 1 | 1 |
Alpha Beta Co. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1995(See Alpha Beta Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 818 , 824-825 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 752 ] [party claiming the attorney-client privilege must prove the attorney-client relationship existed at the time the requested information was communicated and, only after that showing is made, does the burden shift to the other party to show waiver or some other exception]; see also Brotsky v. State Bar (1962) 57 Cal.2d 287 , 302-303 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 368 P.2d 697 , 94 A.L.R.2d 1310 ] [when discovery is sought of confidential files, "a declaration that public interest would suffer by disclosure is 1995(See Alpha Beta Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 818 , 824-825 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 752 ] [party claiming the attorney-client privilege must prove the attorney-client relationship existed at the time the requested information was communicated and, only after that showing is made, does the burden shift to the other party to show waiver or some other exception]; see also Brotsky v. State Bar (1962) 57 Cal.2d 287 , 302-303 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 368 P.2d 697 , 94 A.L.R.2d 1310 ] [when discovery is sought of confidential files, "a declaration that public interest would suffer by disclosure is | 1 | 1 |
Brotsky v. State Bargreen2 sentences1995(See Alpha Beta Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 818 , 824-825 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 752 ] [party claiming the attorney-client privilege must prove the attorney-client relationship existed at the time the requested information was communicated and, only after that showing is made, does the burden shift to the other party to show waiver or some other exception]; see also Brotsky v. State Bar (1962) 57 Cal.2d 287 , 302-303 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 368 P.2d 697 , 94 A.L.R.2d 1310 ] [when discovery is sought of confidential files, "a declaration that public interest would suffer by disclosure is 1995(See Alpha Beta Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 818 , 824-825 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 752 ] [party claiming the attorney-client privilege must prove the attorney-client relationship existed at the time the requested information was communicated and, only after that showing is made, does the burden shift to the other party to show waiver or some other exception]; see also Brotsky v. State Bar (1962) 57 Cal.2d 287 , 302-303 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 368 P.2d 697 , 94 A.L.R.2d 1310 ] [when discovery is sought of confidential files, "a declaration that public interest would suffer by disclosure is | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estate of Fain
green
1 sentence2025To put it another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error.” (Estate of Fain, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 992 , italics omitted.) Here, in the absence of a reporter’s transcript or any error appearing on the face of the record, we presume the evidence adduced at the hearing would demonstrate the absence of error. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of San Jose v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024(See Robert S. v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1417 , 1421-1422.) However, “discovery practice in delinquency proceedings generally has been derived from, and parallels, that in adult criminal cases.” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, 54 .) Discovery in juvenile delinquency proceedings is also guided by California Rules of Court, rule 5.546.2 (J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1334, fn. 5 .) 2 California Rules of Court, rule 5.546 provides, in part, as follows: “(a) General purpose [¶] This rule must be liberally construed in favor of informal di | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Ayala
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 .) This includes the court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s violation of the discovery statutes. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Robert S. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024(See Robert S. v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1417 , 1421-1422.) However, “discovery practice in delinquency proceedings generally has been derived from, and parallels, that in adult criminal cases.” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, 54 .) Discovery in juvenile delinquency proceedings is also guided by California Rules of Court, rule 5.546.2 (J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1334, fn. 5 .) 2 California Rules of Court, rule 5.546 provides, in part, as follows: “(a) General purpose [¶] This rule must be liberally construed in favor of informal di | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Sivongxxay
green
1 sentence2022(Sivongxxay, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 169 .) Our caselaw has upheld waiver of a jury trial “only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent,” without placing the burden on a party to show his waiver was not knowing or intelligent. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Riverside County Department of Public Social Services v. Randall S.
green
1 sentence2019DISCUSSION A. Requirements of California Rule of Court 5.546 “Dependency proceedings in the juvenile court are special proceedings with their own set of rules, governed, in general, by the Welfare and Institutions Code.” (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 200 .) Prehearing discovery is primarily regulated in the juvenile court by rule 5.546.3 The rule states it is to be “liberally construed in favor of informal disclosures, subject to the right of a party to show privilege or other good cause not to disclose specific material or information.” (Rule 5.546(a).) It requires child welfare ag | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Eduardo A.
green
1 sentence1994(See In re Eduardo A., supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 1043 .) Although the rules of court encourage informal and reciprocal discovery, the rules are “subject to the right of a party to show privilege or other good cause not to disclose specific material or information.” (Rule 1420(a).) A person’s right of privacy is accorded greater deference than a statutorily created privilege. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.