Eric motion in California

6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2017 0 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 (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Baker v. Children's Hospital Medical Centergreen calctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 715 P.2d 624 ]; Baker v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1057, 1060 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) Without a record of the oral proceedings, we cannot review whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Eric’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 2017(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 715 P.2d 624 ]; Baker v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1057, 1060 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) Without a record of the oral proceedings, we cannot review whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Eric’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint.	1	1
Ballard v. Uribegreen cal · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 715 P.2d 624 ]; Baker v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1057, 1060 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) Without a record of the oral proceedings, we cannot review whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Eric’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 2017(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 664 , 715 P.2d 624 ]; Baker v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1057, 1060 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) Without a record of the oral proceedings, we cannot review whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Eric’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint.	1	1
Foust v. San Jose Construction Co.green calctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017The numerous situations in which appellate courts have refused to reach the merits of an appellant’s claims because no reporter’s transcript or a suitable substitute of a pertinent proceeding was provided are set forth in Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186-187 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 ]. 2017The numerous situations in which appellate courts have refused to reach the merits of an appellant’s claims because no reporter’s transcript or a suitable substitute of a pertinent proceeding was provided are set forth in Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186-187 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 ].	1	1
In Re Marriage of Skelleygreen cal · 1976 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006For this reason, it has long been established that severable portions of a judgment may be separately appealed, particularly in dissolution cases.” (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 115-116 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 ], citing In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 197 , 556 P.2d 297 ].) Indeed, our Supreme Court has held that an order granting or denying temporary spousal support “is directly appealable as a final judgment independently of the main action.” (Greene v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 403, 405 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 359 P.2d 249 2006For this reason, it has long been established that severable portions of a judgment may be separately appealed, particularly in dissolution cases.” (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 115-116 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 ], citing In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 197 , 556 P.2d 297 ].) Indeed, our Supreme Court has held that an order granting or denying temporary spousal support “is directly appealable as a final judgment independently of the main action.” (Greene v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 403, 405 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 359 P.2d 249	1	1
Eben-King v. Kinggreen calctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006For this reason, it has long been established that severable portions of a judgment may be separately appealed, particularly in dissolution cases.” (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 115-116 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 ], citing In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 197 , 556 P.2d 297 ].) Indeed, our Supreme Court has held that an order granting or denying temporary spousal support “is directly appealable as a final judgment independently of the main action.” (Greene v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 403, 405 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 359 P.2d 249 2006For this reason, it has long been established that severable portions of a judgment may be separately appealed, particularly in dissolution cases.” (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 115-116 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 ], citing In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 197 , 556 P.2d 297 ].) Indeed, our Supreme Court has held that an order granting or denying temporary spousal support “is directly appealable as a final judgment independently of the main action.” (Greene v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 403, 405 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 359 P.2d 249	1	1
Greene v. Superior Courtgreen cal · 1961 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006For this reason, it has long been established that severable portions of a judgment may be separately appealed, particularly in dissolution cases.” (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 115-116 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 ], citing In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 197 , 556 P.2d 297 ].) Indeed, our Supreme Court has held that an order granting or denying temporary spousal support “is directly appealable as a final judgment independently of the main action.” (Greene v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 403, 405 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 359 P.2d 249 2006For this reason, it has long been established that severable portions of a judgment may be separately appealed, particularly in dissolution cases.” (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 115-116 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 ], citing In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 197 , 556 P.2d 297 ].) Indeed, our Supreme Court has held that an order granting or denying temporary spousal support “is directly appealable as a final judgment independently of the main action.” (Greene v. Superior Court (1961) 55 Cal.2d 403, 405 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 359 P.2d 249	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass green calctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2015(ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 825, 832 .) However, the appellate record compiled by Eric does not include a record of the oral trial proceedings.	1	2015–2015
Campbell v. Campbell green calctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2012(Campbell, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 504 .) The trial court denied Eric’s motion to terminate spousal support, and the Court of Appeal agreed, explaining that “a person may never legally remarry prior to dissolution of his or her existing marriage.” (Id. at p. 508.) 6 Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded, “it is reasonable to conclude that the Legislature never expected nor intended that ‘remarriage,’ within the meaning of section 4337, would encompass an attempted remarriage prior to dissolution of the first marriage.” (Campbell, at p. 508, fn. omitted.) Similarly, here, it is reasonable to	1	2012–2012
Guerrero v. South Bay Union School District green calctapp · 2003 1 sentence 2009(Guerrero, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 271 .) For the same reasons, the trial court also found unmeritorious Eric’s claim that he could prove the existence of a duty, leading to liability of the public entity, despite the governmental immunity provisions of Government Code section 815 et seq.	1	2009–2009
People v. Bryon S. green calctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1988Is the juvenile court’s finding that Eric committed grand theft supported by the evidence? 628 Discussion In reliance on In re Bryon S. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 822 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 319 ], Eric contends that he had the right to have his mother present at his adjudication hearing and that she could not be excused unless he waived her presence. 1988Is the juvenile court’s finding that Eric committed grand theft supported by the evidence? 628 Discussion In reliance on In re Bryon S. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 822 [ 223 Cal.Rptr. 319 ], Eric contends that he had the right to have his mother present at his adjudication hearing and that she could not be excused unless he waived her presence.	1	1988–1988

Where else courts name it

IL 7 (1996–2026) CA 6 (1988–2017) KY 2 (2017–2021) NE 2 (2021–2022)

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