viewed rule in California

1988In People v. Ballard (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 982 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 323 ], this court viewed the rule 31(d) requirement that appropriate grounds be stated in the notice of appeal as jurisdictional.

1988In People v. Ballard (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 982 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 323 ], this court viewed the rule 31(d) requirement that appropriate grounds be stated in the notice of appeal as jurisdictional.

2025(Doe, at pp. 49–50, 67.) The defendant argued the high court should nonetheless hold the trial court “ultimately properly exercised its discretion under [Evidence Code] section 352.” (Doe, at p. 67.) The high court “decline[d] to do so,” in part because it appeared from the record that “the trial court viewed the inquiry into prejudicial effect under [Evidence Code] section 352 as posing a mere garden-variety evidentiary question, without bearing in mind the applicable special considerations governing that inquiry in the current setting.” (Doe, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 67–68.) The high court c

2023As we observed in Fontana, supra, 49 Cal.4th 351 (regarding the original rape shield statutes, §§ 1103 and 782), it is proper for a trial court to take into account, when “ ‘determining the amount of unfair prejudice’ ” under section 352, that “the policy of the [original] rape shield law [is] ‘to guard against unwarranted intrusion into the victim’s private life.’ ” (Fontana, at p. 370, quoting U.S. v. One Feather (8th Cir. 1983) 702 F.2d 737 , 739.) The appellate decisions applying the criminal rape shield statutes have honored this policy by emphasizing that discovery or admission should be

2023As we observed in Fontana, supra, 49 Cal.4th 351 (regarding the original rape shield statutes, §§ 1103 and 782), it is proper for a trial court to take into account, when “ ‘determining the amount of unfair prejudice’ ” under section 352, that “the policy of the [original] rape shield law [is] ‘to guard against unwarranted intrusion into the victim’s private life.’ ” (Fontana, at p. 370, quoting U.S. v. One Feather (8th Cir. 1983) 702 F.2d 737 , 739.) The appellate decisions applying the criminal rape shield statutes have honored this policy by emphasizing that discovery or admission should be

2014L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942 , 952 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 688 ], fn. omitted.) *214 In its written opinion as well as in its statements at the final hearing, it was clear that the court viewed the factors of both the beneficial parental relationship and the sibling relationship through the lens of what it viewed as the “critical issue” of the parents’ reunification efforts with the infant sibling.

2014L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942 , 952 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 688 ], fn. omitted.) *214 In its written opinion as well as in its statements at the final hearing, it was clear that the court viewed the factors of both the beneficial parental relationship and the sibling relationship through the lens of what it viewed as the “critical issue” of the parents’ reunification efforts with the infant sibling.

1997(Andrus, supra, 657 F.2d at p. 837 .) The court found the legislative history of NEPA to suggest Congress did not intend to subject agencies dedicated to protecting the environment to the requirements of NEPA.

1990White this court viewed a claim for implied contractual indemnity as a form of equitable indemnity, subject to the comparative indemnity principles established in American Motorcycle. (8) (See fn. 11.), (7b) Under section 877.6, subdivision (c), such an indemnity claim, like other equitable indemnity claims, may not be pursued against a party who has entered into a good faith settlement. [11] The two *1032 Court of Appeal decisions that reached a contrary conclusion ( County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal. App.3d 798 , and Bear Creek Planning Com. v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., s

1990Under section 877.6, subdivision (c), such an indemnity claim, like other equitable indemnity claims, may not be pursued against a party who has entered into a good faith settlement. 11 The two Court of Appeal decisions that reached a contrary conclusion (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal.App.3d 798 , and Bear Creek Planning Com. v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., supra, 164 Cal.App.3d 1227 ) failed to analyze our E.

1990White this court viewed a claim for implied contractual indemnity as a form of equitable indemnity, subject to the comparative indemnity principles established in American Motorcycle. (8) (See fn. 11.), (7b) Under section 877.6, subdivision (c), such an indemnity claim, like other equitable indemnity claims, may not be pursued against a party who has entered into a good faith settlement. [11] The two *1032 Court of Appeal decisions that reached a contrary conclusion ( County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal. App.3d 798 , and Bear Creek Planning Com. v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., s

1990Under section 877.6, subdivision (c), such an indemnity claim, like other equitable indemnity claims, may not be pursued against a party who has entered into a good faith settlement. 11 The two Court of Appeal decisions that reached a contrary conclusion (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal.App.3d 798 , and Bear Creek Planning Com. v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., supra, 164 Cal.App.3d 1227 ) failed to analyze our E.