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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1897–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Bear Valley Cmty. Hosp.green1 sentence2019(El-Attar, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 989 .) 5 E.g., Mileikowsky, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1269 ; Powell v. Bear Valley Community Hospital (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 263, 274-275 (Powell) (both noting statutory description of review panel as trier of fact). 6 Undesignated statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code. 7 In a deposition of the hearing officer taken in connection with the mandate petition, the hearing officer acknowledged slightly more than half of his income in 2011 and 2014 was derived in peer reviews from defendant-affiliated entities and ranged from 0.9 to 24 percent | 1 | 1 |
Knight v. City of Capitolared2 sentences2007What was his or her intent or purpose in pursuing it?’ ” (Gemini Aluminum v. California Custom Shades, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263 , quoting Knight v. City of Capitola (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 918, 932 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 ].) Here, in opposition to the motion for fees, Yield proffered evidence including a declaration by Yield principal Buckheit and excerpts from the deposition of defense expert Robert Stillerman. 2007What was his or her intent or purpose in pursuing it?’ ” (Gemini Aluminum v. California Custom Shades, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263 , quoting Knight v. City of Capitola (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 918, 932 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 ].) Here, in opposition to the motion for fees, Yield proffered evidence including a declaration by Yield principal Buckheit and excerpts from the deposition of defense expert Robert Stillerman. | 1 | 1 |
Hubbart v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2000(Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1144 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ]; In re Parker (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1466 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ].) Here, the deposition and waiver of Griego’s rights under the Fifth Amendment were justified upon the promise that the authorities were seeking to diagnose and treat his mental illness. 2000(Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1144 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ]; In re Parker (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1466 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ].) Here, the deposition and waiver of Griego’s rights under the Fifth Amendment were justified upon the promise that the authorities were seeking to diagnose and treat his mental illness. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Parkergreen2 sentences2000(Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1144 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ]; In re Parker (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1466 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ].) Here, the deposition and waiver of Griego’s rights under the Fifth Amendment were justified upon the promise that the authorities were seeking to diagnose and treat his mental illness. 2000(Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1144 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 492 , 969 P.2d 584 ]; In re Parker (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1453, 1466 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 ].) Here, the deposition and waiver of Griego’s rights under the Fifth Amendment were justified upon the promise that the authorities were seeking to diagnose and treat his mental illness. | 1 | 1 |
Abbott v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1963The attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications between the attorney and client “having to do with the client’s contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof.. ..” (Abbott v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. App.2d 19, 21 [ 177 P.2d 317 ]; Wilson v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.2d 433, 443 [ 307 P.2d 37 ].) Similarly, when the client seeks advice that will serve him in the contemplated perpetration of a fraud there is no privilege. 1963The attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications between the attorney and client “having to do with the client’s contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof.. ..” (Abbott v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. App.2d 19, 21 [ 177 P.2d 317 ]; Wilson v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.2d 433, 443 [ 307 P.2d 37 ].) Similarly, when the client seeks advice that will serve him in the contemplated perpetration of a fraud there is no privilege. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1963The attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications between the attorney and client “having to do with the client’s contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof.. ..” (Abbott v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. App.2d 19, 21 [ 177 P.2d 317 ]; Wilson v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.2d 433, 443 [ 307 P.2d 37 ].) Similarly, when the client seeks advice that will serve him in the contemplated perpetration of a fraud there is no privilege. 1963The attorney-client privilege does not extend to communications between the attorney and client “having to do with the client’s contemplated criminal acts, or in aid or furtherance thereof.. ..” (Abbott v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. App.2d 19, 21 [ 177 P.2d 317 ]; Wilson v. Superior Court, 148 Cal.App.2d 433, 443 [ 307 P.2d 37 ].) Similarly, when the client seeks advice that will serve him in the contemplated perpetration of a fraud there is no privilege. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wahlgren v. Coleco Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019(Wahlgren, supra, 151 Cal.App.3d at p. 546 .) As relevant here, Wahlgren states: “[I]t should be noted that a deposition hearing normally functions as a discovery device. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center
green
1 sentence2019(El-Attar, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 989 .) 5 E.g., Mileikowsky, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1269 ; Powell v. Bear Valley Community Hospital (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 263, 274-275 (Powell) (both noting statutory description of review panel as trier of fact). 6 Undesignated statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code. 7 In a deposition of the hearing officer taken in connection with the mandate petition, the hearing officer acknowledged slightly more than half of his income in 2011 and 2014 was derived in peer reviews from defendant-affiliated entities and ranged from 0.9 to 24 percent | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital & Medical Center
green
2 sentences2019(El-Attar, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 989 .) 5 E.g., Mileikowsky, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1269 ; Powell v. Bear Valley Community Hospital (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 263, 274-275 (Powell) (both noting statutory description of review panel as trier of fact). 6 Undesignated statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code. 7 In a deposition of the hearing officer taken in connection with the mandate petition, the hearing officer acknowledged slightly more than half of his income in 2011 and 2014 was derived in peer reviews from defendant-affiliated entities and ranged from 0.9 to 24 percent 2019(El-Attar, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 989 .) 5 E.g., Mileikowsky, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1269 ; Powell v. Bear Valley Community Hospital (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 263, 274-275 (Powell) (both noting statutory description of review panel as trier of fact). 6 Undesignated statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code. 7 In a deposition of the hearing officer taken in connection with the mandate petition, the hearing officer acknowledged slightly more than half of his income in 2011 and 2014 was derived in peer reviews from defendant-affiliated entities and ranged from 0.9 to 24 percent | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Gemini Aluminum Corp. v. California Custom Shapes, Inc.
green
1 sentence2007What was his or her intent or purpose in pursuing it?’ ” (Gemini Aluminum v. California Custom Shades, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263 , quoting Knight v. City of Capitola (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 918, 932 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 ].) Here, in opposition to the motion for fees, Yield proffered evidence including a declaration by Yield principal Buckheit and excerpts from the deposition of defense expert Robert Stillerman. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2006In Spectra-Physics, supra, 198 Cal.App.3d 1487 , the Court of Appeal went so far as to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance to direct the trial court to vacate its order permitting the deposition of defense counsel to be taken. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Miller v. Ash
green
1 sentence1920In the later case of Metteer v. Smith, 156 Cal. 572 , [ 105 Pac. 600 ], the court, in referring to the last case, passes it with the remark that counsel concede the admission of part of the deposition to be error, but the court ignores the error on the ground that the portions admitted were harmless. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Metteer v. Smith
green
1 sentence1920In the later case of Metteer v. Smith, 156 Cal. 572 , [ 105 Pac. 600 ], the court, in referring to the last case, passes it with the remark that counsel concede the admission of part of the deposition to be error, but the court ignores the error on the ground that the portions admitted were harmless. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Newell v. Desmond
green
1 sentence1897(Newell v. Desmond, 74 Cal. 46 ; Johnston v. McDuffee, 83 Cal. 30 .) But the deposition is not in the record, and there is nothing there which gives the slightest intimation of its contents—except only “that it was duly and legally taken.” Therefore, it does not, of course, appear that appellant was prejudiced by the ruling; but if this be a case where the rule that injury is presumed from abstract error can be successfully invoked, still it does not appear that the exclusion of the deposition was error. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Johnston v. McDuffee
neutral
1 sentence1897(Newell v. Desmond, 74 Cal. 46 ; Johnston v. McDuffee, 83 Cal. 30 .) But the deposition is not in the record, and there is nothing there which gives the slightest intimation of its contents—except only “that it was duly and legally taken.” Therefore, it does not, of course, appear that appellant was prejudiced by the ruling; but if this be a case where the rule that injury is presumed from abstract error can be successfully invoked, still it does not appear that the exclusion of the deposition was error. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.