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.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2026 3 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 Paul H.green2 sentences2026(See, e.g., In re J.W.-P. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 298 , 300 [alleged father has standing to challenge order dismissing dependency proceeding with permanent plan of guardianship where “the trial court clerk never provided father with notice of the procedure he should follow to establish that he is minor’s father and to protect his parental rights”]; In re Paul H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 753, 755, 759 [alleged father has standing to appeal order terminating his parental rights on the ground that “the juvenile court erred by failing to order paternity testing and by failing to appoint counsel to rep 2008The court held that under Kelsey S., Jesus was a presumed father and entitled to reunification services if, on remand, the dependency court finds he came forward promptly, paternity testing revealed he is the biological father, and he is not unfit. ( Id. at pp. 1117-1119, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) We agree with the decision in Baby Boy V. to the extent the court reversed the order denying paternity testing. *768 Jesus was an alleged father who was entitled to an opportunity to establish he is the biological father. ( In re Paul H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 753, 760-762 , 5 Cal. Rptr.3d 1 .) The depen | 1 | 2 |
In Re Josiah Z.green1 sentence2020(In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 676 [“appellate courts routinely consider limited postjudgment evidence” for motions to dismiss]; In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 58 [appellate court may consider postappeal rulings that affect its ability to grant effective relief].) 11 orders not in conflict shall remain in full force and effect.” Mother and Father have not appealed from the order terminating jurisdiction over Jonathan and Jenesis. | 1 | 1 |
Alameda County Social Services Agency v. A.A.green1 sentence2020(In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 676 [“appellate courts routinely consider limited postjudgment evidence” for motions to dismiss]; In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 58 [appellate court may consider postappeal rulings that affect its ability to grant effective relief].) 11 orders not in conflict shall remain in full force and effect.” Mother and Father have not appealed from the order terminating jurisdiction over Jonathan and Jenesis. | 1 | 1 |
Carrasco v. Craftgreen2 sentences1994Under this statute, in addition to being made within the six months’ period, the application must be made within a ‘reasonable time’ and what is a reasonable time in any case depends upon the circumstances of that particular case.” While in “the determination of that question, a large discretion is necessarily confided to [the trial] court” . . . there must be some showing—some evidence—as the basis for the exercise of such discretion.’ ” (Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 805 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 599 ].) Appellant moved to set aside the order of dismissal on the basis of the mutual mist 1994Under this statute, in addition to being made within the six months’ period, the application must be made within a ‘reasonable time’ and what is a reasonable time in any case depends upon the circumstances of that particular case.” While in “the determination of that question, a large discretion is necessarily confided to [the trial] court” . . . there must be some showing—some evidence—as the basis for the exercise of such discretion.’ ” (Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 805 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 599 ].) Appellant moved to set aside the order of dismissal on the basis of the mutual mist | 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 Baby Boy
green
2 sentences2008(Id. at pp. 1111-1115.) He appeared at the next court hearing, which was a section 366.26 hearing, and requested paternity testing. ( 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1112 .) The request was denied, and at a continued section 366.26 hearing, parental rights were terminated. (140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1112-1113.) At no time did Jesus file a section 388 petition requesting presumed father status and reunification services. ( 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1116 & fn. 8.) Our colleagues in Division One reversed the orders denying paternity testing and terminating parental rights. 2008(Id. at pp. 1111-1115.) He appeared at the next court hearing, which was a section 366.26 hearing, and requested paternity testing. ( 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1112 .) The request was denied, and at a continued section 366.26 hearing, parental rights were terminated. (140 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1112-1113.) At no time did Jesus file a section 388 petition requesting presumed father status and reunification services. ( 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1116 & fn. 8.) Our colleagues in Division One reversed the orders denying paternity testing and terminating parental rights. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Litmon v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2025At the next court hearing, Saria told the trial court he had expert witness issues and was given a continuance to January 21, 2016, with defendant’s permission. 9 V February 2016 Through July 2016 “In March 2016, defendant filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus citing Litmon v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1156 , and asserting a speedy trial violation. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
David v. Hernandez
green
1 sentence2025After conducting its own research on the issue, the court advised the parties that it was considering excluding this opinion as “too speculative,” citing David v. Hernandez (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 692 (Hernandez). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2016(People v. Sanchez, supra, 53 Cal.4th 80, 89-90 .) During arraignment, the court explained the Faretta and Marsden motions to Glover, who was then represented by "stand-in counsel." The court recommended that Glover wait until his next court appearance to make the appropriate motion – to "run a Marsden motion, and depending what happens on that, [make] your request to be pro. per. again." At the next court hearing, Glover's attorney informed the trial court that Glover intended to represent himself. 2016(People v. Sanchez, supra, 53 Cal.4th 80, 89-90 .) During arraignment, the court explained the Faretta and Marsden motions to Glover, who was then represented by "stand-in counsel." The court recommended that Glover wait until his next court appearance to make the appropriate motion – to "run a Marsden motion, and depending what happens on that, [make] your request to be pro. per. again." At the next court hearing, Glover's attorney informed the trial court that Glover intended to represent himself. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Y.Z.
green
1 sentence2015Father either invited the ruling that he now complains of on appeal (In re G.P., supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1193-1196), or he forfeited it by failing to object to the imposition of a drug-testing requirement. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jesus H.
neutral
1 sentence2008The court held that under Kelsey S., Jesus was a presumed father and entitled to reunification services if, on remand, the dependency court finds he came forward promptly, paternity testing revealed he is the biological father, and he is not unfit. ( Id. at pp. 1117-1119, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) We agree with the decision in Baby Boy V. to the extent the court reversed the order denying paternity testing. *768 Jesus was an alleged father who was entitled to an opportunity to establish he is the biological father. ( In re Paul H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 753, 760-762 , 5 Cal. Rptr.3d 1 .) The depen | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.