Your MCP token and copy-and-paste setup for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and the rest are on the install page — filled in with your real credentials while you are signed in.
Delete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant — emailed to you with setup instructions, and always available under that icon.
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 2014–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2018This presumption furthers a policy similar to the one underlying the public records exception to the hearsay rule. ( Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301 , 317, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 [public records exception "is based on the presumption that public officers properly perform their official duties"]; Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 72 , 78, 179 Cal.Rptr. 379 ["Commentators have recognized the interrelationship between the official records hearsay exception and the presumption of proper performance of official duty."].) The judgment states, "[Yakovlev], who was duly 2018This presumption furthers a policy similar to the one underlying the public records exception to the hearsay rule. ( Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301 , 317, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 [public records exception "is based on the presumption that public officers properly perform their official duties"]; Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 72 , 78, 179 Cal.Rptr. 379 ["Commentators have recognized the interrelationship between the official records hearsay exception and the presumption of proper performance of official duty."].) The judgment states, "[Yakovlev], who was duly | 2 | 4 |
Jazayeri v. Maogreen2 sentences2018This presumption furthers a policy similar to the one underlying the public records exception to the hearsay rule. ( Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301 , 317, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 [public records exception "is based on the presumption that public officers properly perform their official duties"]; Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 72 , 78, 179 Cal.Rptr. 379 ["Commentators have recognized the interrelationship between the official records hearsay exception and the presumption of proper performance of official duty."].) The judgment states, "[Yakovlev], who was duly 2018This presumption furthers a policy similar to the one underlying the public records exception to the hearsay rule. ( Jazayeri v. Mao (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 301 , 317, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 [public records exception "is based on the presumption that public officers properly perform their official duties"]; Fisk v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1981) 127 Cal.App.3d 72 , 78, 179 Cal.Rptr. 379 ["Commentators have recognized the interrelationship between the official records hearsay exception and the presumption of proper performance of official duty."].) The judgment states, "[Yakovlev], who was duly | 2 | 4 |
People v. Ayersgreen1 sentence2015While the affiant who signed the affidavit may have had such a duty to accurately report Reyes’s statements, “such requirement does not transform [the affidavit] into competent, reliable, trustworthy evidence[.]” (Hernandez, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 .) We conclude the affidavit does not come within the official records hearsay exception in Evidence Code section 1280 because it is based on the observations of a witness who had “no official duty to observe and report the relevant 11 facts.” ( Hernandez, supra, at p. 240 ; see also People v. Ayers (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 988, 994 .) The Peo | 1 | 1 |
Gananian v. Zolingreen2 sentences2015While the affiant who signed the affidavit may have had such a duty to accurately report Reyes’s statements, “such requirement does not transform [the affidavit] into competent, reliable, trustworthy evidence[.]” (Hernandez, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 .) We conclude the affidavit does not come within the official records hearsay exception in Evidence Code section 1280 because it is based on the observations of a witness who had “no official duty to observe and report the relevant 11 facts.” ( Hernandez, supra, at p. 240 ; see also People v. Ayers (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 988, 994 .) The Peo 2015While the affiant who signed the affidavit may have had such a duty to accurately report Reyes’s statements, “such requirement does not transform [the affidavit] into competent, reliable, trustworthy evidence[.]” (Hernandez, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 .) We conclude the affidavit does not come within the official records hearsay exception in Evidence Code section 1280 because it is based on the observations of a witness who had “no official duty to observe and report the relevant 11 facts.” ( Hernandez, supra, at p. 240 ; see also People v. Ayers (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 988, 994 .) The Peo | 1 | 1 |
People v. Guerrerogreen1 sentence2015Under 3 The California Supreme Court has not defined the term “record of conviction” and has declined to address “such questions as what items in the record of conviction are admissible and for what purpose[.]” (People v. Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343, 356, fn. 1 ; People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217, 223 .) In the trial court, Ortiz argued the affidavit was not part of the “record of conviction.” He does not, however, make this argument in his appellate briefs. | 1 | 1 |
Lake v. Reedgreen1 sentence2015While the affiant who signed the affidavit may have had such a duty to accurately report Reyes’s statements, “such requirement does not transform [the affidavit] into competent, reliable, trustworthy evidence[.]” (Hernandez, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 .) We conclude the affidavit does not come within the official records hearsay exception in Evidence Code section 1280 because it is based on the observations of a witness who had “no official duty to observe and report the relevant 11 facts.” ( Hernandez, supra, at p. 240 ; see also People v. Ayers (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 988, 994 .) The Peo | 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. Dunlap
green
2 sentences2024Citing People v. Dunlap (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1468 (Dunlap), J-MM argues that the official records hearsay exception can be applied even without witness testimony on this third element. 2015Code, § 1280, subd. (c).) But People v. Dunlap (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1468 and Martinez support the proposition defendant’s certified CLETS report was admissible under the official records hearsay exception because it is a trustworthy document. | 2 | 2015–2024 |
Kilroy v. State
green
1 sentence2015Appellant, citing Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140 (Kilroy), argues “[p]rinciples of judicial notice prohibit a court from taking judicial notice of the truth of the facts or findings of fact asserted in orders – unless the order . . . establishes a fact for purposes of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.” However, judicial notice is a substitute for evidentiary proof and a judicially noticed fact cannot be controverted. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2015While the affiant who signed the affidavit may have had such a duty to accurately report Reyes’s statements, “such requirement does not transform [the affidavit] into competent, reliable, trustworthy evidence[.]” (Hernandez, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 .) We conclude the affidavit does not come within the official records hearsay exception in Evidence Code section 1280 because it is based on the observations of a witness who had “no official duty to observe and report the relevant 11 facts.” ( Hernandez, supra, at p. 240 ; see also People v. Ayers (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 988, 994 .) The Peo 2015While the affiant who signed the affidavit may have had such a duty to accurately report Reyes’s statements, “such requirement does not transform [the affidavit] into competent, reliable, trustworthy evidence[.]” (Hernandez, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 .) We conclude the affidavit does not come within the official records hearsay exception in Evidence Code section 1280 because it is based on the observations of a witness who had “no official duty to observe and report the relevant 11 facts.” ( Hernandez, supra, at p. 240 ; see also People v. Ayers (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 988, 994 .) The Peo | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Reed
green
1 sentence2015Under 3 The California Supreme Court has not defined the term “record of conviction” and has declined to address “such questions as what items in the record of conviction are admissible and for what purpose[.]” (People v. Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343, 356, fn. 1 ; People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217, 223 .) In the trial court, Ortiz argued the affidavit was not part of the “record of conviction.” He does not, however, make this argument in his appellate briefs. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2015(Martinez, at p. 119.) Evidence Code section 1280 defines the official records hearsay exception as follows: “Evidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered in any civil or criminal proceeding to prove the act, condition, or event if all of the following applies: [¶] (a) The writing was made by and within the scope of duty of a public employee. [¶] (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event. [¶] (c) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indi 2015Code, § 1271), the official records hearsay exception “‘permits the court to admit an official record or report without necessarily requiring a witness to testify as to its identity and mode of preparation if the court takes judicial notice or if sufficient independent evidence shows that the record or report was prepared in such a manner as to assure its trustworthiness.’” (Martinez, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 129 , quoting the Cal. Law Revision Com. com., reprinted at 29B pt. 4 West’s Ann. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Waidla
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 725 .) The People contend the court properly admitted the affidavit under the official records hearsay exception in Evidence Code section 1280.4 Evidence Code section 1280 provides: “Evidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered in any civil or criminal proceeding to prove the act, condition, or event if all of the following applies: [¶] (a) The writing was made by and within the scope of duty of a public employee. [¶] (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the ac | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.