legal basis claim in California

2023Co. v. Reiswig (1999) 21 Cal.4th 208, 211 .) “No particular form of notice is required, but it shall notify the defendant of the legal basis of the claim and the type of loss sustained, including with specificity the nature of the injuries suffered.” (§ 364, subd. (b).) Section 364, subdivision (d) tolls the statute of limitations for 90 days if the notice of intent to sue is served on the health care provider within the last 90 days of the applicable statute of limitations.

2017Co. v. Reiswig (1999) 21 Cal.4th 208 , 211, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 187 , 980 P.2d 895 .) "No particular form of notice is required, but it shall notify the defendant of the legal basis of the claim and the type of loss sustained, including with specificity the nature of the injuries suffered." ( § 364, subd. (b).) Section 364, subdivision (d) tolls the statute of limitations for 90 days if the notice of intent to sue is served on the health care provider within the last 90 days of the applicable statute of limitations. ( Woods, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 325, 279 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 807 P.2d 455 .) The purpos

2022“Whether a claim has been timely presented is assessed based on an indeterminate reasonableness standard.” (Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 890 (Robinson).) We assume for purposes of our analysis that as of the Supreme Court’s issuance of Canizales in June 2019 (Canizales, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 591 ), Sambrano “‘“knew, or reasonably should have known, of the information offered in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim”’” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 460 , superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Friend (2021) 11 Cal.5th 720, 727-729 ).

2020(In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 460 .) Delay is measured from the date a petitioner knew, or reasonably should have known, of the legal basis for a claim.

2015(In re Nunez (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 709, 723 .) Delay is measured from the time a petitioner knew, or reasonably should have known, the information in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim.

2015(In re Nunez (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 709, 723 .) Delay is measured from the time a petitioner knew, or reasonably should have known, the information in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim.

2023(California Building Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Board (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1032, 1041 .) “Our primary task ‘in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent, giving effect to the law’s purpose. [Citation.] We consider first the words of a statute, as the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) We reject as lacking a legal basis the claim that section 3287(a) and CCP section 998 can be read, separately or together, to provide that a successful CCP section 998 offer sufficiently liquidates a claim for damages and establi

2023(California Building Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Board (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1032, 1041 .) “Our primary task ‘in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent, giving effect to the law’s purpose. [Citation.] We consider first the words of a statute, as the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) We reject as lacking a legal basis the claim that section 3287(a) and CCP section 998 can be read, separately or together, to provide that a successful CCP section 998 offer sufficiently liquidates a claim for damages and establi

2015(In re Huddleston, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p.1034.) Indeed, “[a] defendant could not be expected to raise at the time of his conviction points of law which had not yet been pronounced.” (Ibid.; In re Caffey (1968) 68 Cal.2d 762, 773 .) Wilson’s petition is not untimely.

2015(In re Huddleston, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p.1034.) Indeed, “[a] defendant could not be expected to raise at the time of his conviction points of law which had not yet been pronounced.” (Ibid.; In re Caffey (1968) 68 Cal.2d 762, 773 .) Wilson’s petition is not untimely.

2015(In re Huddleston, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p.1034.) Indeed, “[a] defendant could not be expected to raise at the time of his conviction points of law which had not yet been pronounced.” (Ibid.; In re Caffey (1968) 68 Cal.2d 762, 773 .) Wilson’s petition is not untimely.

2015(In re Huddleston, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p.1034.) Indeed, “[a] defendant could not be expected to raise at the time of his conviction points of law which had not yet been pronounced.” (Ibid.; In re Caffey (1968) 68 Cal.2d 762, 773 .) Wilson’s petition is not untimely.

2012The basic instruction provided by the California Supreme Court is simply that ‘a [habeas corpus] petition should be filed as promptly as the circumstances allow ....’” (Walker v. Martin, supra, 562 U.S. at p. _ [ 131 S.Ct. at p. 1125 ].) “A prisoner must seek habeas relief without ‘substantial delay,’ [citations], as ‘measured from the time the petitioner or counsel knew, or reasonably should have known, of the information offered in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim,’ [citation].” (Ibid.; see In re Robbins, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 780 [“Substantial *461 delay is measured

2012The basic instruction provided by the California Supreme Court is simply that ‗a [habeas] petition should be filed as promptly as the circumstances allow . . . .‘ ‖ (Walker v. Martin, supra, 562 U.S. at p. ___ [ 131 S.Ct. at p. 1125 ].) ―A prisoner must seek habeas relief without ‗substantial delay,‘ [citations], as ‗measured from the time the petitioner or counsel knew, or reasonably should have known, of the information offered in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim,‘ [citation].‖ (Ibid.; see also In re Robbins, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 780 [―Substantial delay is measured f

2007However, she was entitled to attorney fees incurred in defending the nuisance cause of action because she “had a legal basis to claim recovery of such fees grounded in the [MRL]____” (Id. at p. 948.) *677 People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 602 P.2d 731 ] (McKale) is another situation where the plaintiff did not allege a cause of action under the MRL, yet the underlying case discussed a specific factual situation addressed by the MRL.

2007However, she was entitled to attorney fees incurred in defending the nuisance cause of action because she “had a legal basis to claim recovery of such fees grounded in the [MRL]____” (Id. at p. 948.) *677 People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 602 P.2d 731 ] (McKale) is another situation where the plaintiff did not allege a cause of action under the MRL, yet the underlying case discussed a specific factual situation addressed by the MRL.

2026(Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 995 , 1008 [“[F]ailure to offer reasoned analysis of [an] issue constitutes a waiver. ‘“‘When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.’”’”].) Even if we were to assume a viable legal basis for defendant’s claim of error for the purpose of resolving it in this appeal, “‘[t]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that [a] sentencing decision was irrational or arb

2025While the Davis-Stirling Act authorizes the recovery of appellate attorneys’ fees by a prevailing party (Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 265 ), the Association does not cite the Act as the basis for its fee request or state in its brief whether that statute or another authority forms the basis for its claim.

2024(In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 460 .) Here, petitioner first filed a petition asserting an error pursuant to Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th 155 , on August 25, 2021, that is, seven years after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Chiu.

2024(In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 460 .) Here, petitioner first filed a petition asserting an error pursuant to Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th 155 , on August 25, 2021, that is, seven years after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Chiu.

2023(See In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 828, fn. 7 [habeas corpus properly used to raise “issues that could not be raised on appeal because they are based on matters outside the appellate record” if “filed within a reasonable time after the petitioner or counsel knew, or with due diligence should have known, the facts underlying the claim as well as the legal basis of the claim”], disapproved on another ground in Shalabi v. City of Fontana (2021) 11 Cal.5th 842, 854 .) The People filed a return in October 2022, conceding petitioner is entitled to his requested relief due to the intervening cha

2022“Whether a claim has been timely presented is assessed based on an indeterminate reasonableness standard.” (Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 890 (Robinson).) We assume for purposes of our analysis that as of the Supreme Court’s issuance of Canizales in June 2019 (Canizales, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 591 ), Sambrano “‘“knew, or reasonably should have known, of the information offered in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim”’” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 460 , superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Friend (2021) 11 Cal.5th 720, 727-729 ).

2022“Whether a claim has been timely presented is assessed based on an indeterminate reasonableness standard.” (Robinson v. Lewis (2020) 9 Cal.5th 883, 890 (Robinson).) We assume for purposes of our analysis that as of the Supreme Court’s issuance of Canizales in June 2019 (Canizales, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 591 ), Sambrano “‘“knew, or reasonably should have known, of the information offered in support of the claim and the legal basis for the claim”’” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 460 , superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Friend (2021) 11 Cal.5th 720, 727-729 ).

2015Having ensured appellant received adequate and effective appellate review, we thus affirm the trial court’s decision.3 (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 112-113.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. _________________________ Jenkins, J. 3 We have also considered and denied appellant’s request to augment the record to include documents from 1981 and 1982 that relate to his underlying conviction and sentencing.

2015People v. Philpot (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 893 , 908-[90]9.” 3 did nothing to promptly confirm those suspicions, that failure must be justified.’ [Citation.]” (In re Douglas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 236, 244 ; see also People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1097-1098 [“The diligence requirement is not some abstract technical obstacle placed randomly before litigants seeking relief, but instead reflects the balance between the state’s interest in the finality of decided cases and its interest in providing a reasonable avenue of relief for those whose rights have allegedly been violated”].) “Controll

2014However, he insists the timeliness of his petition must be measured from the time he or his counsel became aware of the legal basis for his claim, which, he contends was not until 2006, 2007 or perhaps even 2010, when new governing case law was decided – to wit, People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 , People v. Zaidi (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1470 and People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330 .

2014However, he insists the timeliness of his petition must be measured from the time he or his counsel became aware of the legal basis for his claim, which, he contends was not until 2006, 2007 or perhaps even 2010, when new governing case law was decided – to wit, People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 , People v. Zaidi (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1470 and People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330 .

2014However, he insists the timeliness of his petition must be measured from the time he or his counsel became aware of the legal basis for his claim, which, he contends was not until 2006, 2007 or perhaps even 2010, when new governing case law was decided – to wit, People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 , People v. Zaidi (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1470 and People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330 .