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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Nicholas H.green2 sentences2002(In re Nicholas H. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 56, 69 [28 Cal.4th 407a, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 146 , 46 P.3d 932 ] [disallowing genetic testing to rebut presumed father status].) Joshua’s error is in asserting the converse is necessarily true: that presumed father status (or, more precisely, the lack of it) is inapplicable in determining the right to genetic testing. 2002(In re Nicholas H. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 56, 69 [28 Cal.4th 407a, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 146 , 46 P.3d 932 ] [disallowing genetic testing to rebut presumed father status].) Joshua’s error is in asserting the converse is necessarily true: that presumed father status (or, more precisely, the lack of it) is inapplicable in determining the right to genetic testing. | 1 | 2 |
Dawn D. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1999(Cf. Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932, 942 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 952 P.2d 1139 ].) IH Having dispensed with the constitutional arguments, we turn to Joshua’s claim no substantial evidence supports the decision. 1 Joshua concedes that if he were an adult, substantial evidence would support the court’s finding. 1999(Cf. Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932, 942 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 871 , 952 P.2d 1139 ].) IH Having dispensed with the constitutional arguments, we turn to Joshua’s claim no substantial evidence supports the decision. 1 Joshua concedes that if he were an adult, substantial evidence would support the court’s finding. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Jordangreen1 sentence2021(People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316 [“Where . . . a discretionary power is inherently or by express statute vested in the trial judge, . . . 4 exercise of that wide discretion must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice”]) As discussed below, we reject Joshua’s challenge because he has not met his burden to demonstrate the court erred. | 1 | 1 |
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green2 sentences2001This evidence, plus all inferences that may be derived from it (see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 856 [26 Cal.4th 80a, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ]), creates a factual issue as to whether Joshua received an express invitation to enter the Prince property. 2001This evidence, plus all inferences that may be derived from it (see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 856 [26 Cal.4th 80a, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 , 24 P.3d 493 ]), creates a factual issue as to whether Joshua received an express invitation to enter the Prince property. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burquet v. Brumbaugh CA2/5
green
1 sentence2021Joshua cites to three cases— Sabato v. Brooks (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 715, 725 ; Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1144 ; and In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1496—asserting they all involved records containing eye-witness testimony and evidence, but without any further discussion. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Marriage of Nadkarni
green
1 sentence2021Joshua cites to three cases— Sabato v. Brooks (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 715, 725 ; Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1144 ; and In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1496—asserting they all involved records containing eye-witness testimony and evidence, but without any further discussion. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Cluff
green
1 sentence2021(Cluff, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 998 .) Even if he did not forfeit the issue, we note Joshua’s claim the court misunderstood the nature of his bus altercation would not support his challenge of the trial court’s order based on the record he has provided. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sabato v. Brooks CA3
green
1 sentence2021Joshua cites to three cases— Sabato v. Brooks (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 715, 725 ; Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1144 ; and In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1496—asserting they all involved records containing eye-witness testimony and evidence, but without any further discussion. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Yvonne W.
green
1 sentence2015(In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394 , 1403–1404.) We conclude that Joshua’s challenge to the juvenile court order granting mother reunification services is moot. 9 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. | 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.