8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 2 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 Olivia H.green2 sentences1993Code § 7004, subd. (c); see In re Olivia H. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 325, 330 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 792 ].) That is the scenario in this case. 1993Code § 7004, subd. (c); see In re Olivia H. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 325, 330 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 792 ].) That is the scenario in this case. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Zacharia D.green2 sentences2004Thus, under the statute's plain meaning, although Paul's marriage to Jesusa's "natural mother" initially qualified him under section 7611, subdivision (a), for a presumption that he is Jesusa's "natural father," Heriberto's conceded biological paternity constitutes "clear and convincing evidence" that necessarily rebuts the presumption. (§ 7612, subd. (a); see In re Zacharia D., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 450, fn. 18 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 751 , 862 P.2d 751 [UPA presumption of one man "was rebutted by blood tests establishing that [another man] was the biological father"].) Relevant legislative history 2004Thus, under the statute's plain meaning, although Paul's marriage to Jesusa's "natural mother" initially qualified him under section 7611, subdivision (a), for a presumption that he is Jesusa's "natural father," Heriberto's conceded biological paternity constitutes "clear and convincing evidence" that necessarily rebuts the presumption. (§ 7612, subd. (a); see In re Zacharia D., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 450, fn. 18 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 751 , 862 P.2d 751 [UPA presumption of one man "was rebutted by blood tests establishing that [another man] was the biological father"].) Relevant legislative history | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pay Less Drug Storegreen2 sentences1999The majority uncritically rely for that assumption, as did the trial court, on a statement in Dooley's Hardware Mart v. Food Giant Markets, Inc. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 513, 518 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 543 ( Dooley's Hardware), that a UPA defendant may rebut the statutory presumption of intent or purpose to injure competitors or destroy competition "either by evidence tending to bring them within one of the exceptions to the prohibitions contained in the Act or by evidence establishing otherwise that they did not have the requisite wrongful intent." (Italics added, fn. omitted.) A careful reading of Peopl 1999The majority uncritically rely for that assumption, as did the trial court, on a statement in Dooley's Hardware Mart v. Food Giant Markets, Inc. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 513, 518 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 543 ( Dooley's Hardware), that a UPA defendant may rebut the statutory presumption of intent or purpose to injure competitors or destroy competition "either by evidence tending to bring them within one of the exceptions to the prohibitions contained in the Act or by evidence establishing otherwise that they did not have the requisite wrongful intent." (Italics added, fn. omitted.) A careful reading of Peopl | 1 | 1 |
Dooley's Hardware Mart v. Food Giant Markets, Inc.green2 sentences1999The majority uncritically rely for that assumption, as did the trial court, on a statement in Dooley's Hardware Mart v. Food Giant Markets, Inc. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 513, 518 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 543 ( Dooley's Hardware), that a UPA defendant may rebut the statutory presumption of intent or purpose to injure competitors or destroy competition "either by evidence tending to bring them within one of the exceptions to the prohibitions contained in the Act or by evidence establishing otherwise that they did not have the requisite wrongful intent." (Italics added, fn. omitted.) A careful reading of Peopl 1999The majority uncritically rely for that assumption, as did the trial court, on a statement in Dooley's Hardware Mart v. Food Giant Markets, Inc. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 513, 518 , 98 Cal.Rptr. 543 ( Dooley's Hardware), that a UPA defendant may rebut the statutory presumption of intent or purpose to injure competitors or destroy competition "either by evidence tending to bring them within one of the exceptions to the prohibitions contained in the Act or by evidence establishing otherwise that they did not have the requisite wrongful intent." (Italics added, fn. omitted.) A careful reading of Peopl | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Calvert
green
2 sentences2025(Id. at p. 92.) Having found “two women each have presented acceptable proof of maternity,” the Court stated, “we do not believe this case can be decided without enquiring into the parties’ intentions as manifested in the surrogacy agreement.” (Johnson, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 93 .) The Court concluded, “although the [UPA] recognizes both genetic consanguinity and giving birth as means of establishing a mother and child relationship, when the two means do not coincide in one woman, she who intended to procreate the child—that is, she who intended to bring about the birth of a child that she int 2025(Id. at p. 92.) Having found “two women each have presented acceptable proof of maternity,” the Court stated, “we do not believe this case can be decided without enquiring into the parties’ intentions as manifested in the surrogacy agreement.” (Johnson, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 93 .) The Court concluded, “although the [UPA] recognizes both genetic consanguinity and giving birth as means of establishing a mother and child relationship, when the two means do not coincide in one woman, she who intended to procreate the child—that is, she who intended to bring about the birth of a child that she int | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Jesusa
green
2 sentences2004As noted, the "conclusive" presumption under section 7540 is *253 also a section 7611 UPA presumption, and the majority concedes that, under section 7541, subdivision (a), this "conclusive presumption ... is rebutted by evidence of biological fatherhood." (Maj. opn., ante, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 224 , 85 P.3d at p. 19 .) However, under the majority's view, the non conclusive presumptions under section 7611 are not necessarily rebutted by evidence of biological fatherhood. 2004As noted, the "conclusive" presumption under section 7540 is *253 also a section 7611 UPA presumption, and the majority concedes that, under section 7541, subdivision (a), this "conclusive presumption ... is rebutted by evidence of biological fatherhood." (Maj. opn., ante, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 224 , 85 P.3d at p. 19 .) However, under the majority's view, the non conclusive presumptions under section 7611 are not necessarily rebutted by evidence of biological fatherhood. | 2 | 2004–2006 |
Paterno v. State
green
1 sentence2020We will neither speculate nor make arguments for plaintiff (Paterno, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 106 ) and will instead affirm the grant of summary judgment on this cause of action. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.