Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Mathewsgreen2 sentences2024(See, e.g., Mathews, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 632 [husband who entrusted wife with all financial matters and relied on her judgment and management successfully rebutted presumption that wife’s quitclaim deed to husband was due to undue influence]; Weil, supra, 37 Cal.2d at pp. 787–789 [wife’s deed to husband was voluntary where she was aware that spousal interests were in conflict and she had ample opportunity to obtain independent advice].) In short, application of the presumption does not make the invalidity of written transmutation agreements a foregone conclusion. 2024(See, e.g., Mathews, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 632 [husband who entrusted wife with all financial matters and relied on her judgment and management successfully rebutted presumption that wife’s quitclaim deed to husband was due to undue influence]; Weil, supra, 37 Cal.2d at pp. 787–789 [wife’s deed to husband was voluntary where she was aware that spousal interests were in conflict and she had ample opportunity to obtain independent advice].) In short, application of the presumption does not make the invalidity of written transmutation agreements a foregone conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
Michael H. v. Gerald D.green2 sentences2009(See Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989) 491 U.S. 110, 129-130 [ 105 L.Ed.2d 91 , 109 S.Ct. 2333 ] (plur. opn. of Scalia, J.) [state did not violate biological father’s constitutional rights by denying him an opportunity to rebut a presumption that husband of mother was father; “[i]t is a question of legislative policy and not constitutional law whether California will allow the presumed parenthood of a couple desiring to retain a child conceived within and bom into their marriage to be rebutted”].) It may be that there are different circumstances in which such an order would be unconstitutional, b 2009(See Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989) 491 U.S. 110, 129-130 [ 105 L.Ed.2d 91 , 109 S.Ct. 2333 ] (plur. opn. of Scalia, J.) [state did not violate biological father’s constitutional rights by denying him an opportunity to rebut a presumption that husband of mother was father; “[i]t is a question of legislative policy and not constitutional law whether California will allow the presumed parenthood of a couple desiring to retain a child conceived within and bom into their marriage to be rebutted”].) It may be that there are different circumstances in which such an order would be unconstitutional, b | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marilyn Hgreen1 sentence2005(See In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 310.) She had the opportunity to rebut the presumption Dakota’s return to her care was detrimental. | 1 | 1 |
County of San Diego v. Browngreen2 sentences1984The recognized interests of the state in maintaining the conclusive presumption of paternity are (1) to preserve the integrity of the family unit ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ; Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603, 619 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ]); (2) to safeguard the welfare of minor children by protecting them from the stigma of illegitimacy ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ), and by ensuring that parents fulfill their support obligations ( County of San Diego v. Brown (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 297, 303 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 483 ]); and (3) to ensure that titles to 1984The recognized interests of the state in maintaining the conclusive presumption of paternity are (1) to preserve the integrity of the family unit ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ; Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603, 619 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ]); (2) to safeguard the welfare of minor children by protecting them from the stigma of illegitimacy ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ), and by ensuring that parents fulfill their support obligations ( County of San Diego v. Brown (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 297, 303 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 483 ]); and (3) to ensure that titles to | 1 | 1 |
Kusior v. Silvergreen2 sentences1984The recognized interests of the state in maintaining the conclusive presumption of paternity are (1) to preserve the integrity of the family unit ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ; Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603, 619 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ]); (2) to safeguard the welfare of minor children by protecting them from the stigma of illegitimacy ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ), and by ensuring that parents fulfill their support obligations ( County of San Diego v. Brown (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 297, 303 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 483 ]); and (3) to ensure that titles to 1984The recognized interests of the state in maintaining the conclusive presumption of paternity are (1) to preserve the integrity of the family unit ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ; Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603, 619 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ]); (2) to safeguard the welfare of minor children by protecting them from the stigma of illegitimacy ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ), and by ensuring that parents fulfill their support obligations ( County of San Diego v. Brown (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 297, 303 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 483 ]); and (3) to ensure that titles to | 1 | 1 |
S. D. W. v. Holdengreen2 sentences1984The recognized interests of the state in maintaining the conclusive presumption of paternity are (1) to preserve the integrity of the family unit ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ; Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603, 619 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ]); (2) to safeguard the welfare of minor children by protecting them from the stigma of illegitimacy ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ), and by ensuring that parents fulfill their support obligations ( County of San Diego v. Brown (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 297, 303 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 483 ]); and (3) to ensure that titles to 1984The recognized interests of the state in maintaining the conclusive presumption of paternity are (1) to preserve the integrity of the family unit ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ; Kusior v. Silver (1960) 54 Cal.2d 603, 619 [ 7 Cal. Rptr. 129 , 354 P.2d 657 ]); (2) to safeguard the welfare of minor children by protecting them from the stigma of illegitimacy ( In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 650 ), and by ensuring that parents fulfill their support obligations ( County of San Diego v. Brown (1978) 80 Cal. App.3d 297, 303 [ 145 Cal. Rptr. 483 ]); and (3) to ensure that titles to | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weil v. Weil
green
1 sentence2024(See, e.g., Mathews, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 632 [husband who entrusted wife with all financial matters and relied on her judgment and management successfully rebutted presumption that wife’s quitclaim deed to husband was due to undue influence]; Weil, supra, 37 Cal.2d at pp. 787–789 [wife’s deed to husband was voluntary where she was aware that spousal interests were in conflict and she had ample opportunity to obtain independent advice].) In short, application of the presumption does not make the invalidity of written transmutation agreements a foregone conclusion. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Burkle v. Burkle
green
1 sentence2024On this score, “a mere benefit is not enough; the advantage must operate ‘to the disadvantage’ of the other spouse.” (See Burkle, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at pp. 731, 735–736 [no unfair advantage where parties obtained mutually agreeable advantages and grantor spouse was advised by attorneys when executing the agreement].) Furthermore, the grantee spouse retains the opportunity to rebut the presumption by demonstrating the transfer was freely and voluntarily made, with full knowledge of the facts and a complete understanding of the effect of the transaction. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Marriage of Rothrock
green
1 sentence2016(In re Marriage of Rothrock (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 223, 230 .) Here, the trial court clearly did not exceed the bounds of reason by finding Virginia’s circumstances insufficient to outweigh the public policy underlying the presumption.3 3 In her reply brief, Virginia argues that the court failed to give her the opportunity to rebut the presumption by presenting evidence of Cesar’s domestic violence against her. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Washington v. Glucksberg
green
1 sentence2009(See Troxel , at p. 73.) *389 Not only has Kristina failed to present relevant authorities and analysis regarding the actual asserted liberty interest at issue, but she fails to address the “complex balancing of competing interests” (Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S. at p. 722 ) necessary to resolution of substantive due process claims, despite the fact that this court identified some of the potential competing interests in Charisma I . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Vega v. City of West Hollywood
green
1 sentence1994Vega involved such a special relationship and an ordinance which provided (1) a presumption that the net operating income produced by the property during the base year provided a fair return, and (2) an opportunity to rebut the presumption by establishing, inter alia, that the rent on the base date was disproportionately low because it was not established in an arm’s-length transaction or other peculiar circumstances. ( 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 1345 and fn. 1.) Neither case held that all landlords have the right to have their base rent adjusted merely by showing that the base rent was below market | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re Lisa R.
green
2 sentences1984Under this court’s holding in In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d 636 , it is a violation of due process to deny her the opportunity to rebut this presumption. 1984Under this court's holding in In re Lisa R., supra, 13 Cal.3d 636 , it is a violation of due process to deny her the opportunity to rebut this presumption. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.