Gordon standard in California

2024Still, we deny Gordon’s motion because he has not demonstrated “any reasonable attorney would agree” Chandler’s appeal “is totally and completely without merit.” (See In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650 .) Nor has Gordon shown Chandler maintained her appeal to harass him or cause delay.

2022As to Gordon’s claim, the Supreme Court was clear in Lemcke that “[w]hile there is general agreement that witness certainty is not a good indicator of accuracy under most circumstances, that ‘does not mean that eyewitness certainty is never correlated with accuracy.’ [Citation.] Rather, as Justice Liu explained in his concurring opinion in [People v. Sánchez, supra,] 63 Cal.4th 411 , the research suggests that ‘ “the strength of the confidence- accuracy relationship varies, as it depends on complex interactions among [numerous] factors.” ’ ” ( Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 666–667.) Because

2022As to Gordon’s claim, the Supreme Court was clear in Lemcke that “[w]hile there is general agreement that witness certainty is not a good indicator of accuracy under most circumstances, that ‘does not mean that eyewitness certainty is never correlated with accuracy.’ [Citation.] Rather, as Justice Liu explained in his concurring opinion in [People v. Sánchez, supra,] 63 Cal.4th 411 , the research suggests that ‘ “the strength of the confidence- accuracy relationship varies, as it depends on complex interactions among [numerous] factors.” ’ ” ( Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 666–667.) Because

2022As to Gordon’s claim, the Supreme Court was clear in Lemcke that “[w]hile there is general agreement that witness certainty is not a good indicator of accuracy under most circumstances, that ‘does not mean that eyewitness certainty is never correlated with accuracy.’ [Citation.] Rather, as Justice Liu explained in his concurring opinion in [People v. Sánchez, supra,] 63 Cal.4th 411 , the research suggests that ‘ “the strength of the confidence- accuracy relationship varies, as it depends on complex interactions among [numerous] factors.” ’ ” ( Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 666–667.) Because

2016Moreover, 17 Gordon established without dispute that he had experience in “community and public/private outreach” and had “developed a Young Muslim Leaders Group.” (3) Timing and other factors supporting an inference of retaliation We further note that the timing and nature of several acts and events, together with identity of the decision makers and Gordon’s highly favorable performance reviews, also serve to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether City’s purported nonretaliatory reasons and support Gordon’s claim of retaliation. ( Sada, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 156–157.) It is un

2014We concluded that “the trial court did not err by denying Gordon’s plea in abatement because the [post-Ronje] evaluation process had not been completed.” (Gordon v. Superior Court, supra, G045207.) DISCUSSION In Reilly, supra, 57 Cal.4th at page 646 , the California Supreme Court addressed the issue whether a court must dismiss an SVPA commitment petition that was supported by evaluations conducted under an invalid standardized assessment protocol. 4 The initial evaluations of the alleged sexually violent predator in Reilly had been conducted under the standardized assessment protocol later de

1994“In determining in advance of trial if a particular procedure or proceeding comports with the demands of due process, the courts have sought to ascertain whether in the absence of relief a reasonable likelihood exists that a fair trial cannot be had.” (Gordon v. Justice Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 323, 329 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 632 , 525 P.2d 72 , 71 A.L.R.3d 551 ] cert, den. 420 U.S. 938 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 415 , 95 S.Ct. 1149 ], italics in original.) The record provides no basis for a conclusion that the petition satisfies the Gordon standard.

1994“In determining in advance of trial if a particular procedure or proceeding comports with the demands of due process, the courts have sought to ascertain whether in the absence of relief a reasonable likelihood exists that a fair trial cannot be had.” (Gordon v. Justice Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 323, 329 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 632 , 525 P.2d 72 , 71 A.L.R.3d 551 ] cert, den. 420 U.S. 938 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 415 , 95 S.Ct. 1149 ], italics in original.) The record provides no basis for a conclusion that the petition satisfies the Gordon standard.

1994“In determining in advance of trial if a particular procedure or proceeding comports with the demands of due process, the courts have sought to ascertain whether in the absence of relief a reasonable likelihood exists that a fair trial cannot be had.” (Gordon v. Justice Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 323, 329 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 632 , 525 P.2d 72 , 71 A.L.R.3d 551 ] cert, den. 420 U.S. 938 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 415 , 95 S.Ct. 1149 ], italics in original.) The record provides no basis for a conclusion that the petition satisfies the Gordon standard.