Kramer rule in California

2023Yet as in Howard Jarvis, if the monthly assessments imposed on penthouse units are unreasonable and unenforceable under Civil Code section 5975, as Kramer alleges, then their “continued imposition and collection is an ongoing violation, upon which the limitations period begins anew with each collection.” (Howard Jarvis, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 812 .) Whatever the merits of Kramer’s claims, we see no meaningful distinction between the continuing collection of the allegedly invalid tax in Howard Jarvis and the continuing collection of the allegedly invalid assessment here.

2023(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.100(a)(2), 8.405(a)(3).) A notice of appeal shall be ‘“liberally construed so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what [the] appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced.”’” (In re J.F. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 70, 75 , original italics.) Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to construe the notice of appeal to include the order denying the motion to set aside the dismissal, and, in so doing, we review the order denying Kramer’s motion for reconsideration. (§ 1008, subd. (g).

2017In Barnum , we invalidated a rule requiring trial courts to advise in propria persona defendants of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination before they were called by the People or testified in their own defense. ( People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 499 , 64 P.3d 788 ( Barnum ) [disapproving Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146 , 314 P.2d 164 and People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199 , 38 Cal.Rptr. 487 ].) That rule, known as the Killpatrick - Kramer rule-which did not mandate advisements for represented defendants but did mandate them

2017In Barnum , we invalidated a rule requiring trial courts to advise in propria persona defendants of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination before they were called by the People or testified in their own defense. ( People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 499 , 64 P.3d 788 ( Barnum ) [disapproving Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146 , 314 P.2d 164 and People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199 , 38 Cal.Rptr. 487 ].) That rule, known as the Killpatrick - Kramer rule-which did not mandate advisements for represented defendants but did mandate them

2017In Barnum , we invalidated a rule requiring trial courts to advise in propria persona defendants of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination before they were called by the People or testified in their own defense. ( People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 499 , 64 P.3d 788 ( Barnum ) [disapproving Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146 , 314 P.2d 164 and People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199 , 38 Cal.Rptr. 487 ].) That rule, known as the Killpatrick - Kramer rule-which did not mandate advisements for represented defendants but did mandate them

2017In Barnum , we invalidated a rule requiring trial courts to advise in propria persona defendants of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination before they were called by the People or testified in their own defense. ( People v. Barnum (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1210 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 499 , 64 P.3d 788 ( Barnum ) [disapproving Killpatrick v. Superior Court (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 146 , 314 P.2d 164 and People v. Kramer (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 199 , 38 Cal.Rptr. 487 ].) That rule, known as the Killpatrick - Kramer rule-which did not mandate advisements for represented defendants but did mandate them

2015To the extent the court did not consider any extrinsic evidence in interpreting those writings, we apply a de novo standard and independently decide that question of law. ( Parsons, supra, 62 Cal.2d at pp. 865-866.) Alternatively, to the extent the trial court did consider Kramer's testimony (or other evidence he presented) as extrinsic evidence in support of his suggested interpretation of ambiguities in the contract, we likewise apply a de novo standard and independently interpret that contract and draw our own inferences because Defendants did not present any conflicting evidence.

2001In People v. Wells, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 468 , 68 Cal.Rptr. 400 , Wells was an inmate charged with possession of a knife in prison; he claimed self-defense, which was not an available defense on the facts.

2001In People v. Wells, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 468 , 68 Cal.Rptr. 400 , Wells was an inmate charged with possession of a knife in prison; he claimed self-defense, which was not an available defense on the facts.

1983In thirteen pages of transcript the only reference to the section 352 issue was defense counsel’s statement that “Since my client has led an otherwise blameless life for the incidents inquired about are too old and would have more prejudicial effect than probative value . . . .” (Compare People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 24 [§ 352 issue argued “at some length’’].) 2 CALJIC No. 2.21 states: “A witness willfully false in one material part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others.