judge fails rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

judge fails rule in California

8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2007 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.

Followed or applied (17)

CaseFollowedCited
Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd.green
cal · 1999 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2003
2 sentences

2003On appeal, L'Oreal again argues that this statement is inadmissible hearsay. "[W]hen a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudication evidentiary objections, they are deemed waived." ( City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 780, 784 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 140 ( Long Beach ); see also Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ; Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 698, 706, fn. 3 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 .) The court in Long Beach carved out one exception to this general rule that if a party ob

2003On appeal, L'Oreal again argues that this statement is inadmissible hearsay. "[W]hen a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudication evidentiary objections, they are deemed waived." ( City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 780, 784 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 140 ( Long Beach ); see also Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ; Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 698, 706, fn. 3 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 .) The court in Long Beach carved out one exception to this general rule that if a party ob

44
City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bankgreen
calctapp · 2000 · cited in 5 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2007
2 sentences

2007There, citing and quoting Sharon P. and Ann M., Presiding Justice Turner noted that “[(typically, when a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudication motion evidentiary objections, the California Supreme Court has held that the objections are deemed waived on appeal.” (Id. at p. 783.) Then, citing cases beginning in 1872 holding that failure to rule on evidentiary objections deems them waived, he noted that Sharon P. and Ann M. were “merely the application of the trial rule concerning waiver of . . . objections in the law and motion context.” (City of Long Beach, supra, 81 Cal

2003On appeal, L'Oreal again argues that this statement is inadmissible hearsay. "[W]hen a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudication evidentiary objections, they are deemed waived." ( City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 780, 784 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 140 ( Long Beach ); see also Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ; Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 698, 706, fn. 3 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 .) The court in Long Beach carved out one exception to this general rule that if a party ob

35
Arnold v. Dow Chemical Companygreen
calctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003On appeal, L'Oreal again argues that this statement is inadmissible hearsay. "[W]hen a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudication evidentiary objections, they are deemed waived." ( City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 780, 784 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 140 ( Long Beach ); see also Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ; Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 698, 706, fn. 3 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 .) The court in Long Beach carved out one exception to this general rule that if a party ob

2003On appeal, L'Oreal again argues that this statement is inadmissible hearsay. "[W]hen a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudication evidentiary objections, they are deemed waived." ( City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bank (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 780, 784 , 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 140 ( Long Beach ); see also Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ; Arnold v. Dow Chemical Co. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 698, 706, fn. 3 , 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 722 .) The court in Long Beach carved out one exception to this general rule that if a party ob

11
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green
cal · 2001 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003(Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ], disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853, fn. 19 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Accordingly, because a motion to strike is akin to a summary judgment motion (see discussion, post), in reviewing the trial court’s order denying the motion, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties. 5 These descriptions of the videos are taken from the court’s statement of decision denying the SLAPP motion. 6 Trader Joe’s Co. v. Progressive Ca

2003(Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ], disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853, fn. 19 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Accordingly, because a motion to strike is akin to a summary judgment motion (see discussion, post), in reviewing the trial court’s order denying the motion, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties. 5 These descriptions of the videos are taken from the court’s statement of decision denying the SLAPP motion. 6 Trader Joe’s Co. v. Progressive Ca

11
Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.green
cal · 2001 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002(Sharon P. v. Arman Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 [91 *624 Cal.Rptr.2d 35, 989 P.2d 121 ], disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 854, fn. 19 ; Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 670, fn. 1 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137 , 863 P.2d 207 ].) 7 Accordingly, in reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties. 8 3.

11
Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Centergreen
cal · 1993 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002(Sharon P. v. Arman Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 [91 *624 Cal.Rptr.2d 35, 989 P.2d 121 ], disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 854, fn. 19 ; Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 670, fn. 1 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137 , 863 P.2d 207 ].) 7 Accordingly, in reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties. 8 3.

2002(Sharon P. v. Arman Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 [91 *624 Cal.Rptr.2d 35, 989 P.2d 121 ], disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 854, fn. 19 ; Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 670, fn. 1 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137 , 863 P.2d 207 ].) 7 Accordingly, in reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties. 8 3.

11
Haskell v. Carligreen
calctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000Proc., § 437c, subds. (b) & (c); Golden West Baseball Co. v. Talley (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1294, 1301, fn. 4 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; Ramsey v. City of Lake Elsinore (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1530, 1540 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 198 ]; Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 124, 129-132 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) Although many of the objections appear meritorious, for purposes of this appeal we must view the objectionable evidence as having been admitted in evidence and therefore as part of the record.”].) *784 The foregoing rule, which holds that when a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudicatio

2000Proc., § 437c, subds. (b) & (c); Golden West Baseball Co. v. Talley (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1294, 1301, fn. 4 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; Ramsey v. City of Lake Elsinore (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1530, 1540 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 198 ]; Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 124, 129-132 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) Although many of the objections appear meritorious, for purposes of this appeal we must view the objectionable evidence as having been admitted in evidence and therefore as part of the record.”].) *784 The foregoing rule, which holds that when a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudicatio

11
Golden West Baseball Co. v. Talleygreen
calctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000Proc., § 437c, subds. (b) & (c); Golden West Baseball Co. v. Talley (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1294, 1301, fn. 4 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; Ramsey v. City of Lake Elsinore (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1530, 1540 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 198 ]; Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 124, 129-132 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) Although many of the objections appear meritorious, for purposes of this appeal we must view the objectionable evidence as having been admitted in evidence and therefore as part of the record.”].) *784 The foregoing rule, which holds that when a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudicatio

2000Proc., § 437c, subds. (b) & (c); Golden West Baseball Co. v. Talley (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1294, 1301, fn. 4 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; Ramsey v. City of Lake Elsinore (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1530, 1540 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 198 ]; Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 124, 129-132 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) Although many of the objections appear meritorious, for purposes of this appeal we must view the objectionable evidence as having been admitted in evidence and therefore as part of the record.”].) *784 The foregoing rule, which holds that when a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudicatio

11
Ramsey v. City of Lake Elsinoregreen
calctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000Proc., § 437c, subds. (b) & (c); Golden West Baseball Co. v. Talley (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1294, 1301, fn. 4 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; Ramsey v. City of Lake Elsinore (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1530, 1540 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 198 ]; Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 124, 129-132 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) Although many of the objections appear meritorious, for purposes of this appeal we must view the objectionable evidence as having been admitted in evidence and therefore as part of the record.”].) *784 The foregoing rule, which holds that when a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudicatio

2000Proc., § 437c, subds. (b) & (c); Golden West Baseball Co. v. Talley (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1294, 1301, fn. 4 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 53 ]; Ramsey v. City of Lake Elsinore (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1530, 1540 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 198 ]; Haskell v. Carli (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 124, 129-132 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) Although many of the objections appear meritorious, for purposes of this appeal we must view the objectionable evidence as having been admitted in evidence and therefore as part of the record.”].) *784 The foregoing rule, which holds that when a trial judge fails to rule on summary judgment or adjudicatio

11
People v. Rowlandgreen
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

11
People v. McPetersred
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

11
People v. Millweegreen
cal · 1998 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

11
People v. Conklinggreen
cal · 1896 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

11
People v. Samayoagreen
cal · 1997 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

11
Goodale v. Thorngreen
cal · 1926 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

11
Campbell v. Genshleagreen
cal · 1919 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

11
Smith v. Smithgreen
cal · 1912 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Sanford green
cal · 1872
2 sentences

2005“Beginning in 1872 with People v. Sanford (1872) 43 Cal. 29, 32 , the California Supreme Court has consistently held that when a judge fails to rule on evidentiary objections during a trial, they are deemed waived. . . .

2005"Beginning in 1872 with People v. Sanford (1872) 43 Cal. 29, 32 , the California Supreme Court has consistently held that when a judge fails to rule on evidentiary objections during a trial, they are deemed waived....

22000–2005
Gallagher v. Connell green
calctapp · 2004
2 sentences

2005Accordingly, because a motion to strike [a SLAPP suit] is akin to a summary judgment motion ..., in reviewing the trial court's order denying the motion, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties." ( Id. at p. 1014, fn. 4, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 668 , citations omitted.) More recently, in Gallagher v. Connell (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1260 , 20 Cal. Rptr.3d 673 , Division Seven of this court held that, in opposing an anti-SLAPP motion, a plaintiff may show a probability of success on the merits where the supporting evidence is inadmissible but the defendant fails to make a proper objection.

2005Accordingly, because a motion to strike [a SLAPP suit] is akin to a summary judgment motion ..., in reviewing the trial court's order denying the motion, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties." ( Id. at p. 1014, fn. 4, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 668 , citations omitted.) More recently, in Gallagher v. Connell (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1260 , 20 Cal. Rptr.3d 673 , Division Seven of this court held that, in opposing an anti-SLAPP motion, a plaintiff may show a probability of success on the merits where the supporting evidence is inadmissible but the defendant fails to make a proper objection.

12005–2005
Slauson Partnership v. Ochoa green
calctapp · 2003
1 sentence

2005Accordingly, because a motion to strike [a SLAPP suit] is akin to a summary judgment motion ..., in reviewing the trial court's order denying the motion, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties." ( Id. at p. 1014, fn. 4, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 668 , citations omitted.) More recently, in Gallagher v. Connell (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1260 , 20 Cal. Rptr.3d 673 , Division Seven of this court held that, in opposing an anti-SLAPP motion, a plaintiff may show a probability of success on the merits where the supporting evidence is inadmissible but the defendant fails to make a proper objection.

12005–2005
Costco Companies, Inc. v. Gallant green
calctapp · 2002
2 sentences

2003(Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ], disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853, fn. 19 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Accordingly, because a motion to strike is akin to a summary judgment motion (see discussion, post), in reviewing the trial court’s order denying the motion, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties. 5 These descriptions of the videos are taken from the court’s statement of decision denying the SLAPP motion. 6 Trader Joe’s Co. v. Progressive Ca

2003(Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ], disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853, fn. 19 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Accordingly, because a motion to strike is akin to a summary judgment motion (see discussion, post), in reviewing the trial court’s order denying the motion, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties. 5 These descriptions of the videos are taken from the court’s statement of decision denying the SLAPP motion. 6 Trader Joe’s Co. v. Progressive Ca

12003–2003
Trader Joe's Co. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc. green
calctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2003(Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ], disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853, fn. 19 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Accordingly, because a motion to strike is akin to a summary judgment motion (see discussion, post), in reviewing the trial court’s order denying the motion, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties. 5 These descriptions of the videos are taken from the court’s statement of decision denying the SLAPP motion. 6 Trader Joe’s Co. v. Progressive Ca

2003(Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1186, fn. 1 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ], disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 853, fn. 19 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ].) Accordingly, because a motion to strike is akin to a summary judgment motion (see discussion, post), in reviewing the trial court’s order denying the motion, we consider all the evidence presented by the parties. 5 These descriptions of the videos are taken from the court’s statement of decision denying the SLAPP motion. 6 Trader Joe’s Co. v. Progressive Ca

12003–2003
Sanquírico v. Registrar of Property of Caguas green
prsupreme · 1932
1 sentence

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

12000–2000
People v. Westlake green
cal · 1882
1 sentence

2000(E.g., People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 126 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 954 P.2d 990 ]; People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 400 , 938 P.2d 2 ]; People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 259 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 ]; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1179 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ]; Goodale v. Thorn (1926) 199 Cal. 307, 315 [ 249 P. 11 ]; Campbell v. Genshlea (1919) 180 Cal. 213, 220 [ 180 P. 336 ]; Smith v. Smith (1912) 163 Cal. 630, 631 [ 126 P. 475 ]; People v. Westlake (1882) 62 Cal. 303, 309 , disapproved on another ground in People

12000–2000
Harry G. Seaboldt v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff) v. Thompson Mahogany Company (Third-Party Defendant) green
ca3 · 1961
1 sentence

1976But, as said by the Supreme Court, a litigant who had engaged in misconduct is not entitled to “the benefit of calculation, which can be little better than speculation, as to the extent of the wrong inflicted upon his opponent.” ’ ” (Love v. Wolf, supra, at p. 394 , quoting Seaboldt v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (3d Cir. 1961) 290 F.2d 296, 300 .) With respect to plaintiff’s contention that defendants had waived their right to complain about the misconduct by not always- objecting to it, the court pragmatically dismissed the objection, saying: “As any experienced trial lawyer knows, multipl

11976–1976

Where else courts name it

CA 8 (1976–2007) IN 5 (1995–2012) AL 3 (1979–2009)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check