date set hearing (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

date set hearing in California

53 California opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2026 20 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 (27)

CaseFollowedCited
Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co.green
cal · 1983 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1986–1995
2 sentences

1995(Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 561, fn. 7 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 773 , 669 P.2d 9 ].) *1699 Thus, a party seeking dismissal for lack of prosecution “shall serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing . . . .” (Rule 373(a), italics added.) If “the court intends to dismiss an action on its own motion [for delay in prosecution], the clerk shall set a hearing on the dismissal and mail notice to all parties at least 20 days before the hearing date.” (Rule 372(a), italics added.) Here, the grant of dismissal in response to defense counsel’s

1995(Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 561, fn. 7 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 773 , 669 P.2d 9 ].) *1699 Thus, a party seeking dismissal for lack of prosecution “shall serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing . . . .” (Rule 373(a), italics added.) If “the court intends to dismiss an action on its own motion [for delay in prosecution], the clerk shall set a hearing on the dismissal and mail notice to all parties at least 20 days before the hearing date.” (Rule 372(a), italics added.) Here, the grant of dismissal in response to defense counsel’s

33
In Re Elijahgreen
calctapp · 2005 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2011–2022
2 sentences

2022Subdivision (a)(3) of section 352 provides: “In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(3); see also, Cal.Rules of Ct., rule 5.550(a)(4).) The juvenile court may continue a dependency hearing at a parent’s request for good cause shown. (§ 352, subd. (a).) “Courts have interpreted this polic

2021An ICWA-020 form as to David, signed by David and filed on October 12, 2017, is part of the record. 14 provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.’” (In re Abbigail A. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83, 95 ; see § 352, subd. (a)(2) [“[c]ontinuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for the continuance”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.550(a)(4) [“[i]n order to obtain a continuance, written notice with supporting documents must

23
Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.green
cal · 1997 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2022
2 sentences

2022Because we decide Quaid has forfeited its appellate challenges to two other dispositive issues, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether it also forfeited its challenge to this defense. 11 “A petition under this title shall be heard in a summary way in the manner and upon the notice provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except that not less than 10 days’ notice of the date set for the hearing on the petition shall be given.” (§ 1290.2.) 17 (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 (Engalla).) The petitioning party must also prove a prior demand and refusal to arbitrate under the agreemen

2008Code of Civil Procedure section 1290.2 provides: “A petition under this title shall be heard in a summary way in the manner and upon the notice provided by law for the making and hearing of motions, except that not less than 10 days’ notice of the date set for the hearing on the petition shall be given.” In summary proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1290.2, “the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination. [C

22
People v. Roermangreen
calctapp · 1961 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
2 sentences

1988Section 170.6, subdivision (2), provides in part that when the parties know the identity of the judge or commissioner "assigned to or who is scheduled to" hear a matter at least 10 days before the date set for hearing, a challenge is untimely unless made at least 5 days before the hearing. [2] When a party files a motion and calendars it for hearing in a specified department of the superior court, is the judge's identity "known" for purposes of that provision? *93 In striking the challenge in the instant case, the trial court was following the holding of People v. Roerman (1961) 189 Cal. App.2

1988Section 170.6, subdivision (2), provides in part that when the parties know the identity of the judge or commissioner "assigned to or who is scheduled to" hear a matter at least 10 days before the date set for hearing, a challenge is untimely unless made at least 5 days before the hearing. [2] When a party files a motion and calendars it for hearing in a specified department of the superior court, is the judge's identity "known" for purposes of that provision? *93 In striking the challenge in the instant case, the trial court was following the holding of People v. Roerman (1961) 189 Cal. App.2

22
Andre v. General Dynamics, Inc.green
calctapp · 1974 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1975–1987
2 sentences

1987(Andre v. General Dynamics, Inc. (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 839, 845-846 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 95 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Proceedings Without Trial, § 203, p. 509.) “Obviously, where the court itself initiates a motion to dismiss, due process demands notice to the plaintiff adequate to defend against the charge of procrastination.” (Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 561, fn. 7 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 773 , 669 P.2d 9 ].) A defendant seeking to dismiss an action under the discretionary dismissal provisions must serve and file notice of motion “at least 45 days before the

1987(Andre v. General Dynamics, Inc. (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 839, 845-846 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 95 ]; 6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Proceedings Without Trial, § 203, p. 509.) “Obviously, where the court itself initiates a motion to dismiss, due process demands notice to the plaintiff adequate to defend against the charge of procrastination.” (Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 561, fn. 7 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 773 , 669 P.2d 9 ].) A defendant seeking to dismiss an action under the discretionary dismissal provisions must serve and file notice of motion “at least 45 days before the

22
In Re Giovanni F.green
calctapp · 2010 · cited in 6 California opinions naming this issue, 2014–2023
2 sentences

2023(In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 604 .) “In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (Welf. & Inst.

2023(In re Giovanni F. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 594, 604 .) “In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (Welf. & Inst.

16
In Re Karla C.green
calctapp · 2003 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022Subdivision (a)(3) of section 352 provides: “In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(3); see also, Cal.Rules of Ct., rule 5.550(a)(4).) The juvenile court may continue a dependency hearing at a parent’s request for good cause shown. (§ 352, subd. (a).) “Courts have interpreted this polic

2022Subdivision (a)(3) of section 352 provides: “In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(3); see also, Cal.Rules of Ct., rule 5.550(a)(4).) The juvenile court may continue a dependency hearing at a parent’s request for good cause shown. (§ 352, subd. (a).) “Courts have interpreted this polic

12
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. T.E.green
calctapp · 2015 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026Third, neither father nor father’s counsel introduced into evidence any documentation establishing that the department had attempted to coerce him into waiving his constitutional rights.12 Fourth, father failed to file a motion for a continuance, in writing, at least two court days prior to the date set for the hearing, “together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(3).) Thus, father failed to establish good cause for the continuance, and th

11
Cohen v. Hughes Markets, Inc.green
calctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024“A party seeking dismissal of a case [for lack of prosecution] under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410-583.430 must serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing of the motion.” (Rule 3.1342(a), italics added; see also Cohen, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1699 [construing former rule 373]; Franklin, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 213–214 [former rule 373 “prescribes no less than 45 days’ notice of any motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution”].) Eric’s oral request for dismissal at the continued trial readiness conference and OSC hearing did not compo

2024“A party seeking dismissal of a case [for lack of prosecution] under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410-583.430 must serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing of the motion.” (Rule 3.1342(a), italics added; see also Cohen, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1699 [construing former rule 373]; Franklin, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 213–214 [former rule 373 “prescribes no less than 45 days’ notice of any motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution”].) Eric’s oral request for dismissal at the continued trial readiness conference and OSC hearing did not compo

11
MANSOURI v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022(Mansouri v. Superior Court (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 633, 640 (Mansouri).) The party opposing arbitration bears the burden of proving any defense to arbitration.

11
In Re David H.green
calctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(1)–(2).) A court may continue any hearing in dependency proceedings, including a section 366.26 hearing. (§ 352, subd. (a); see also In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687, 694 .) However, “[c]ontinuances in juvenile dependency proceedings are d

11
In Re Michael R.green
calctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(1)–(2).) A court may continue any hearing in dependency proceedings, including a section 366.26 hearing. (§ 352, subd. (a); see also In re Michael R. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 687, 694 .) However, “[c]ontinuances in juvenile dependency proceedings are d

11
Garcia v. McCutchengreen
cal · 1997 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016(Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 482, fn. 10 .) Fa'Alofa makes no such showing.

11
Smith v. Adventist Health System/Westgreen
calctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
11
DIAL 800 v. Fesbindergreen
calctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
11
Kohn v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1966 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
11
Bambula v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
11
Gulf Coast Investment Corp. v. NASA 1 Business Centergreen
tex · 1988 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
11
People v. Escobedogreen
calctapp · 1973 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
11
Sambrano v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1973 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
11
Eagle Maintenance & Supply Co. v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1961 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
11
Schlumpf v. Superior Court of Trinity Countygreen
calctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
11
Clark v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979
11
Silva v. Bairgreen
cal · 1904 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1966–1966
11
Welden v. Davis Auto Exchangegreen
calctapp · 1957 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1964–1964
11
City of Port Hueneme v. City of Oxnardgreen
cal · 1959 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960
11
In re Difference & Controversy between E. M. Derby & Co. & City of Modestogreen
cal · 1894 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1927–1927
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 (38)

CaseCitedYears
Los Angeles County v. E.C green
calctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2025(In re B.C. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 129, 143-144 .) We “ ‘consider all the 15 evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.’ ” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 .) In this case, the juvenile court acted within its discretion in refusing to continue the hearing.

2021In considering the minor’s interests, the court shall give substantial weight to a minor’s need for prompt resolution of his or her custody 12 status, the need to provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.” Subdivision (a)(2) of section 352 provides that “Continuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary.” Subdivision (a)(3) further provides, “In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to

52021–2025
San Joaquin County Department of Human Services v. Gary L. green
calctapp · 1993
2 sentences

2025(In re B.C. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 129, 143-144 .) We “ ‘consider all the 15 evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.’ ” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 .) In this case, the juvenile court acted within its discretion in refusing to continue the hearing.

2025(In re B.C. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 129, 143-144 .) We “ ‘consider all the 13 evidence, draw all reasonable inferences, and resolve all evidentiary conflicts, in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.’ ” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1066 .) Here, the juvenile court acted well within its discretion in denying mother’s request to continue the hearing.

42024–2025
Franklin Capital Corp. v. Wilson green
calctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2024“A party seeking dismissal of a case [for lack of prosecution] under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.410-583.430 must serve and file a notice of motion at least 45 days before the date set for hearing of the motion.” (Rule 3.1342(a), italics added; see also Cohen, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1699 [construing former rule 373]; Franklin, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 213–214 [former rule 373 “prescribes no less than 45 days’ notice of any motion to dismiss for delay in prosecution”].) Eric’s oral request for dismissal at the continued trial readiness conference and OSC hearing did not compo

12024–2024
People v. Tucker green
calctapp · 2011
1 sentence

2023“Health quarantines to prevent the spread of infectious diseases have long been recognized as good cause for continuing a trial date.” (People v. Breceda (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 71 , 91; Stanley v. Superior Court (2011) 50 Cal.App.5th 164 , 169.) Indeed, good cause exists when an incarcerated defendant is “under quarantine to prevent the spread of infectious disease.” (People v. Tucker (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1314 .) Considering the information before the trial court regarding Linthecome’s health status, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding good cause to continue t

12023–2023
In Re Marriage of Hoffmeister green
calctapp · 1984
1 sentence

2023For example, in Hoffmeister, the appellant seeking the continuance had received the other party’s amended financial statement only a few days before the date set for hearing, and the appellate court held that the denial of a continuance erroneously deprived the appellant of “an adequate opportunity to contest new claims advanced . . . at virtually the last moment.” (Hoffmeister, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 1170 .) Here, by contrast, Yang had ample notice of the impending trial to explore her options for a continuance, and at a minimum was aware that the trial was scheduled to go forward (notwi

12023–2023
People v. Rhoades green
cal · 2019
1 sentence

2023(People v. Rhoades (2019) 8 Cal.5th 393, 451 .) Here, the trial court based its finding of good cause on the declaration of the doctor who indicated Linthecome had tested positive for COVID and could not be physically transported to court on the date set for hearing.

12023–2023
People v. Cole green
calappdeptsuper · 2008
1 sentence

2022Whenever any continuance is granted, the facts proven which require the continuance shall be entered upon the minutes of the court.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(2).) “In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary, unless the court for good cause entertains an oral motion for continuance.” (§ 352, subd. (a)(3).) “What constitutes good cause is a matter within the court’s discretion, and its determ

12022–2022
JEFF M. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County green
calctapp · 1997
1 sentence

2022(In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 179-180 .) “Discretion is abused when a decision is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (Ibid.) “The juvenile dependency statutory scheme requires that petitions under section 300 be heard, and decided rapidly. [Citation.] Continuances are discouraged.” (In re Axsana S. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 262, 272 , disapproved on other grounds In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 624, fn. 12.) “Continuances should be difficult to obtain.” (Jeff M. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1242 .) B.

12022–2022
In Re Axsana S. green
calctapp · 2000
1 sentence

2022(In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 179-180 .) “Discretion is abused when a decision is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (Ibid.) “The juvenile dependency statutory scheme requires that petitions under section 300 be heard, and decided rapidly. [Citation.] Continuances are discouraged.” (In re Axsana S. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 262, 272 , disapproved on other grounds In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 624, fn. 12.) “Continuances should be difficult to obtain.” (Jeff M. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1242 .) B.

12022–2022
In Re Jesusa green
cal · 2004
1 sentence

2022(In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 179-180 .) “Discretion is abused when a decision is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” (Ibid.) “The juvenile dependency statutory scheme requires that petitions under section 300 be heard, and decided rapidly. [Citation.] Continuances are discouraged.” (In re Axsana S. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 262, 272 , disapproved on other grounds In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 624, fn. 12.) “Continuances should be difficult to obtain.” (Jeff M. v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1242 .) B.

12022–2022
Orange County Social Services Agency v. C.B. green
calctapp · 2015
1 sentence

2021(In re F.A. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 107, 117 .) Mother’s counsel made no showing of good cause for the oral nature of her continuance request, and her attempted filing of a written motion the night before the hearing, even if not rejected for technical reasons, would have been untimely. (§ 352, subd. (a)(3).) Counsel offered no explanation as to why a timely written motion could not have been made earlier.

12021–2021
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Robert W. green
calctapp · 2013
1 sentence

2021“Although continuances are discouraged in dependency cases [citation], the juvenile court has discretion to grant a continuance upon a showing of good cause if it is not contrary to the best interest of the child. (§ 352, subd. (a).) We review the court’s ruling on a continuance request for an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (In re Mary B. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1481 .) “In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to the date set for hearing, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts s

12021–2021
Sacramento County Department of Health & Human Services v. Joseph A. green
cal · 2016
1 sentence

2021An ICWA-020 form as to David, signed by David and filed on October 12, 2017, is part of the record. 14 provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.’” (In re Abbigail A. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83, 95 ; see § 352, subd. (a)(2) [“[c]ontinuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for the continuance”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.550(a)(4) [“[i]n order to obtain a continuance, written notice with supporting documents must

12021–2021
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. D.B. green
calctapp · 2014
1 sentence

2021An ICWA-020 form as to David, signed by David and filed on October 12, 2017, is part of the record. 14 provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.’” (In re Abbigail A. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83, 95 ; see § 352, subd. (a)(2) [“[c]ontinuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for the continuance”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.550(a)(4) [“[i]n order to obtain a continuance, written notice with supporting documents must

12021–2021
L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. D.Y. (In re D.Y.) green
calctapp5d · 2018
1 sentence

2021An ICWA-020 form as to David, signed by David and filed on October 12, 2017, is part of the record. 14 provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.’” (In re Abbigail A. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 83, 95 ; see § 352, subd. (a)(2) [“[c]ontinuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for the continuance”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.550(a)(4) [“[i]n order to obtain a continuance, written notice with supporting documents must

12021–2021
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Elizabeth D. green
calctapp · 2015
1 sentence

2021In considering the minor’s interests, the court shall give substantial weight to a minor’s need for prompt resolution of his or her custody 12 status, the need to provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements.” Subdivision (a)(2) of section 352 provides that “Continuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and only for that period of time shown to be necessary.” Subdivision (a)(3) further provides, “In order to obtain a motion for a continuance of the hearing, written notice shall be filed at least two court days prior to

12021–2021
People v. Sanchez green
cal · 2016
2 sentences

2019Although Couthren’s counsel initially raised no objection to this procedure, on the date set for hearing he filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude the expert evaluations on hearsay grounds in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th 665 .

2019Although Couthren’s counsel initially raised no objection to this procedure, on the date set for hearing he filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude the expert evaluations on hearsay grounds in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th 665 .

12019–2019
Wipranik v. Sup. Ct. of Los Angeles Cty. green
calctapp · 1998
12016–2016
People v. Henderson green
calctapp · 2004
12016–2016
Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. green
calctapp · 1992
12015–2015
McComber v. Wells green
calctapp · 1999
12014–2014
Sacramento County Department of Health & Human Services v. V.G. green
calctapp · 2010
12014–2014
In Re Ninfa S. green
calctapp · 1998
12013–2013
County of San Bernardino v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1994
12003–2003
EDSEL P. v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1985
11993–1993
Villarruel v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1973
11988–1988
In Re Marriage of Flaherty green
cal · 1982
11985–1985
Durst v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County green
calctapp · 1963
11966–1966
Cintrón v. Alvarez neutral
prsupreme · 1932
11966–1966
Benson v. Superior Court of Napa County green
calctapp · 1963
11966–1966
McCarthy v. Mt. Tecarte Land & Water Co. green
cal · 1896
11966–1966
Schilling v. Buhne neutral
cal · 1903
11963–1963
Williams v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County neutral
cal · 1881
11927–1927
Bliss v. Hamilton green
cal · 1915
11927–1927
Ex parte Carson neutral
cal · 1881
11924–1924
Tripp v. Tripp green
cal · 1922
11924–1924
Berendsen v. Babdaty green
calctapp · 1923
11923–1923
Coats v. Coats green
cal · 1905
11923–1923

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 25u.s.c.1901 (4) CA § Cal. Welfare and Institutions Code § 352 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 53 (1923–2026) TX 19 (1920–2010) OH 13 (2000–2023) NY 12 (1942–2014) IL 10 (1946–2022) LA 9 (1951–2024) MI 9 (1925–2025) AL 8 (1977–2025) IN 8 (1909–2020) PA 7 (1963–2023) CT 7 (1993–2025) MD 6 (1970–2010) GA 6 (1946–1983) HI 6 (1969–2017) OK 5 (1932–1982) FL 4 (1961–2014) WA 4 (2005–2018) KS 4 (1946–2006) IA 4 (1985–2021) OR 4 (1975–2021) WI 4 (1993–2022) UT 4 (1999–2020) TN 3 (2001–2026) MT 3 (1924–2006) NC 3 (1975–1979) ID 3 (1971–2009) AZ 3 (1970–2009) SD 2 (1990–1996) WY 2 (1991–1998) WV 2 (1925–2023) NJ 2 (2008–2018) MO 2 (1908–2008) NE 2 (2005–2005) VA 2 (1981–1981) MS 2 (1991–1992)

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