right to request hearing in California

2014(Cf. People v. Blankenship (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 992, 997, fn. 4 [“To the extent case law suggests a defendant is entitled to a hearing and proof of the losses for restitution under [Penal Code] section 1203.1 even in the absence of a request, [citations], we hold 16 that level of due process is not required for a restitution order under Government Code section 13967]”.) DISPOSITION Defendant forfeited the right to raise the issue of victim restitution on appeal and also impliedly waived the right to request a hearing on the amount of victim restitution when defense trial counsel, after condit

1995One hundred years ago, New York’s highest court explained in Bryant v. Thompson, supra, 128 N.Y. at pages 432-435 [28 N.E. at pages 523-525], a case this court has previously relied upon for guidance in this area of the law (see Estate of Ferrall, supra, 33 Cal.2d at p. 204), why even in cases where a fiduciary has the right to request instruction from a trial court as to whether a beneficiary’s action is a contest within the meaning of a no contest clause, the fiduciary is not aggrieved by and may not appeal the court’s resulting order.

1995One hundred years ago, New York's highest court explained in Bryant v. Thompson, supra, 128 N.Y. at pages 432-435 [28 N.E. at pages 523-525], a case this court has previously relied upon for guidance in this area of the law (see Estate of Ferrall, supra, 33 Cal.2d at p. 204), why even in cases where a fiduciary has the right to request instruction from a trial court as to whether a beneficiary's action is a contest within the meaning of a no contest clause, the fiduciary is not aggrieved by and may not appeal the court's resulting order.

1993(See Sale v. Railroad Commission (1940) 15 Cal.2d 612, 614-615 [ 104 P.2d 38 ]; 32 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 297 (1959).) With respect to the issuance of licenses under the Radiation Control Law, the Legislature clearly intended to give any person whose interest may be affected the right to request a hearing.

1993(See Sale v. Railroad Commission (1940) 15 Cal.2d 612, 614-615 [ 104 P.2d 38 ]; 32 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 297 (1959).) With respect to the issuance of licenses under the Radiation Control Law, the Legislature clearly intended to give any person whose interest may be affected the right to request a hearing.

1960Particularly is this true because (plaintiff) did not request a modification of the pretrial conference order, which he had a right to request under rule 8.7.’ ” See also the more recent cases o£ Crowell v. Braly, supra, 169 Cal.App.2d 352, 355-356 [ 337 P.2d 211 ]; De Stackelberg v. Lamb Transportation Co., 168 Cal.App.2d 174, 180 [ 335 P.2d 522 ], The provisions of the Corporations Code were satisfied.

1960Particularly is this true because (plaintiff) did not request a modification of the pretrial conference order, which he had a right to request under rule 8.7.’ ” See also the more recent cases o£ Crowell v. Braly, supra, 169 Cal.App.2d 352, 355-356 [ 337 P.2d 211 ]; De Stackelberg v. Lamb Transportation Co., 168 Cal.App.2d 174, 180 [ 335 P.2d 522 ], The provisions of the Corporations Code were satisfied.

1960Particularly is this true because (plaintiff) did not request a modification of the pretrial conference order, which he had a right to request under rule 8.7.’ ” See also the more recent cases o£ Crowell v. Braly, supra, 169 Cal.App.2d 352, 355-356 [ 337 P.2d 211 ]; De Stackelberg v. Lamb Transportation Co., 168 Cal.App.2d 174, 180 [ 335 P.2d 522 ], The provisions of the Corporations Code were satisfied.

1960Particularly is this true because (plaintiff) did not request a modification of the pretrial conference order, which he had a right to request under rule 8.7.’ ” See also the more recent cases o£ Crowell v. Braly, supra, 169 Cal.App.2d 352, 355-356 [ 337 P.2d 211 ]; De Stackelberg v. Lamb Transportation Co., 168 Cal.App.2d 174, 180 [ 335 P.2d 522 ], The provisions of the Corporations Code were satisfied.