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 2 courts 1953–2023 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 Hardygreen2 sentences2020“The main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. [Citation.] Because the referee observes the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, we generally defer to the referee’s factual findings and ‘give great weight’ to them when supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312, 333 ; see also In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 993 [“This is especially true for findings involving credibility determinations. . . . [W]e give special deference to the referee on factual questions ‘requiring r 2020“The main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. [Citation.] Because the referee observes the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, we generally defer to the referee’s factual findings and ‘give great weight’ to them when supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312, 333 ; see also In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 993 [“This is especially true for findings involving credibility determinations. . . . [W]e give special deference to the referee on factual questions ‘requiring r | 3 | 3 |
In re Bacigalupogreen2 sentences2020“The main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. [Citation.] Because the referee observes the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, we generally defer to the referee’s factual findings and ‘give great weight’ to them when supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312, 333 ; see also In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 993 [“This is especially true for findings involving credibility determinations. . . . [W]e give special deference to the referee on factual questions ‘requiring r 2020“The main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. [Citation.] Because the referee observes the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, we generally defer to the referee’s factual findings and ‘give great weight’ to them when supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Bacigalupo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 312, 333 ; see also In re Hardy (2007) 41 Cal.4th 977, 993 [“This is especially true for findings involving credibility determinations. . . . [W]e give special deference to the referee on factual questions ‘requiring r | 1 | 3 |
In Re Pricegreen2 sentences2013Further, according to petitioner, “[t]he hearing record reflects Ary’s complete lack of credibility.” To be sure, Ary made some inconsistent statements, some of which could have undermined his believability, but “[t]he main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. [Citation.] Because the referee observes the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, we generally defer to the referee’s factual findings and ‘give great weight’ to them when supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Bacigalupo, supra, 55 Cal.4th at 2013Further, according to petitioner, “[t]he hearing record reflects Ary’s complete lack of credibility.” To be sure, Ary made some inconsistent statements, some of which could have undermined his believability, but “[t]he main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. [Citation.] Because the referee observes the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, we generally defer to the referee’s factual findings and ‘give great weight’ to them when supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Bacigalupo, supra, 55 Cal.4th at | 1 | 1 |
In re Crewgreen2 sentences2012(In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 149 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 , 254 P.3d 320 ]; In re Bolden, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 224 .) The main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. 2012(In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 149 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 , 254 P.3d 320 ]; In re Bolden, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 224 .) The main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Thomasgreen2 sentences2012(In re Thomas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1249, 1256 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 845 , 129 P.3d 49 ].) Because the referee observes the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, we generally defer to the referee’s factual findings and “give great weight” to them when supported by substantial evidence. 2012(In re Thomas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1249, 1256 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 845 , 129 P.3d 49 ].) Because the referee observes the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, we generally defer to the referee’s factual findings and “give great weight” to them when supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Foucha v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1997If he is to be held, he should not be held as a mentally ill person. [Citations.] [*]Q Second, if Foucha can no longer be held as an insanity acquittee in a mental hospital, he is entitled to constitutionally adequate procedures to establish the grounds for his confinement. ... ['ID Third, ‘the Due Process Clause contains a substantive component that bars certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions, “regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” ’ [Citations.]” (Foucha v. Louisiana, supra, 504 U.S. at pp. 78-80 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 1784-1785], italics added.) In sum, in 1997If he is to be held, he should not be held as a mentally ill person. [Citations.] [*]Q Second, if Foucha can no longer be held as an insanity acquittee in a mental hospital, he is entitled to constitutionally adequate procedures to establish the grounds for his confinement. ... ['ID Third, ‘the Due Process Clause contains a substantive component that bars certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions, “regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” ’ [Citations.]” (Foucha v. Louisiana, supra, 504 U.S. at pp. 78-80 [112 S.Ct. at pp. 1784-1785], italics added.) In sum, in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Vivar
green
2 sentences2023(Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 527 .) Nevertheless, we reach a different conclusion from the trial court based on our independent examination of the evidence. 2023(Vivar, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 527 .) Nevertheless, we reach a different conclusion from the trial court based on our independent examination of the evidence. | 3 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Bolden
green
2 sentences2012(In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 149 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 , 254 P.3d 320 ]; In re Bolden, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 224 .) The main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. 2012(In re Crew (2011) 52 Cal.4th 126, 149 ; In re Bolden, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 224 .) The main reason for an evidentiary hearing is to have the referee determine the credibility of the testimony given at the hearing. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hamilton v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences1953As was said in Prouty v. Prouty, 16 Cal.2d 190 , at page 194 [ 105 P.2d 295 ]: “The question as to whether a parent is a fit or proper person to have the custody of a minor child refers, however, to his or her fitness at the time of the hearing. ...” (See, also, Hamilton v. Hamilton, 104 Cal.App.2d 111 [ 231 P.2d 69 ].) Secondly, it appears that preceding the order of February 2, 1953, a hearing was had before the court at which petitioner was personally present and was also represented by counsel. 1953As was said in Prouty v. Prouty, 16 Cal.2d 190 , at page 194 [ 105 P.2d 295 ]: “The question as to whether a parent is a fit or proper person to have the custody of a minor child refers, however, to his or her fitness at the time of the hearing. ...” (See, also, Hamilton v. Hamilton, 104 Cal.App.2d 111 [ 231 P.2d 69 ].) Secondly, it appears that preceding the order of February 2, 1953, a hearing was had before the court at which petitioner was personally present and was also represented by counsel. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Prouty v. Prouty
green
2 sentences1953As was said in Prouty v. Prouty, 16 Cal.2d 190 , at page 194 [ 105 P.2d 295 ]: “The question as to whether a parent is a fit or proper person to have the custody of a minor child refers, however, to his or her fitness at the time of the hearing. ...” (See, also, Hamilton v. Hamilton, 104 Cal.App.2d 111 [ 231 P.2d 69 ].) Secondly, it appears that preceding the order of February 2, 1953, a hearing was had before the court at which petitioner was personally present and was also represented by counsel. 1953As was said in Prouty v. Prouty, 16 Cal.2d 190 , at page 194 [ 105 P.2d 295 ]: “The question as to whether a parent is a fit or proper person to have the custody of a minor child refers, however, to his or her fitness at the time of the hearing. ...” (See, also, Hamilton v. Hamilton, 104 Cal.App.2d 111 [ 231 P.2d 69 ].) Secondly, it appears that preceding the order of February 2, 1953, a hearing was had before the court at which petitioner was personally present and was also represented by counsel. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.