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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Figueroagreen2 sentences2025(S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 40-41 ; Ross v. Figueroa (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 856, 861, 866 .) But that admonition does not absolve trial courts from following the rules of evidence, including the most fundamental evidentiary principle that evidence be relevant before it is admitted. 2020(Ross v. Figueroa (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 856, 868 .) We need not address plaintiff’s remaining arguments concerning the trial court’s denial of the request for a protective order. 6 IV. | 1 | 2 |
Molinaro v. Molinarogreen1 sentence2025(See, e.g., Molinaro v. Molinaro (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 824, 828, fn. 3 [trial court applied hearsay rule in DVPA hearing]; M.S. v. A.S. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1139 , 1142 [same].) She also argues that trial courts considering DVPA petitions involving self-represented litigants (as Molano was before the trial court) must use “expedited and simplified procedures,” and must take “a far more active” and somewhat “inquisitorial” role. | 1 | 1 |
Cohen v. Herbertgreen2 sentences2020(See, e.g., Cohen v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 488, 492, 496 [denying a continuance of one week for defendants to prepare affidavit was an abuse of discretion].) We will reverse and remand for the trial court to schedule a new DVPA hearing. 2020(See, e.g., Cohen v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal.App.2d 488, 492, 496 [denying a continuance of one week for defendants to prepare affidavit was an abuse of discretion].) We will reverse and remand for the trial court to schedule a new DVPA hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Nadkarni
green
2 sentences2026For example, in Nadkarni, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pages 1488– 1489, the appellant sought a DVRO to restrain her ex-husband from using information he obtained after accessing her email account. 2025For example, in Nadkarni, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at pages 1488– 1489, the appellant sought a DVRO to restrain her ex-husband from using information he obtained after accessing her email account. | 3 | 2025–2026 |
S.A. v. Maiden
green
1 sentence2025(S.A. v. Maiden (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 27, 40-41 ; Ross v. Figueroa (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 856, 861, 866 .) But that admonition does not absolve trial courts from following the rules of evidence, including the most fundamental evidentiary principle that evidence be relevant before it is admitted. | 1 | 2025–2025 |