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 2 courts 1952–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Diamond View Limited v. Herzgreen1 sentence2022(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 .) The trial court granted Fuller’s motion to quash on the ground that “[t]he general rule is that discovery is not available in restraining order matters, and [Perez] has not established that the information sought would be relevant, admissible, or would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” It is true that some courts have reasoned that, “[t]here is no provision under section 527.6 allowing for discovery, and in any case, under the civil harassment scheme there is insufficient time in which to cond uct discovery.” (Thomas v. Quin | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Quinterogreen2 sentences2022(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 .) The trial court granted Fuller’s motion to quash on the ground that “[t]he general rule is that discovery is not available in restraining order matters, and [Perez] has not established that the information sought would be relevant, admissible, or would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” It is true that some courts have reasoned that, “[t]here is no provision under section 527.6 allowing for discovery, and in any case, under the civil harassment scheme there is insufficient time in which to cond uct discovery.” (Thomas v. Quin 2022(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 .) The trial court granted Fuller’s motion to quash on the ground that “[t]he general rule is that discovery is not available in restraining order matters, and [Perez] has not established that the information sought would be relevant, admissible, or would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” It is true that some courts have reasoned that, “[t]here is no provision under section 527.6 allowing for discovery, and in any case, under the civil harassment scheme there is insufficient time in which to cond uct discovery.” (Thomas v. Quin | 1 | 1 |
Gee v. American Realty & Construction Inc.green2 sentences2022(Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 .) “ ‘[I]f the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.’ ” (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 (Gee); Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 (Foust).) This is so because a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and “error must be affirmatively shown.” (Gee, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416 ; Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187 .) By omitt 2022(Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 .) “ ‘[I]f the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.’ ” (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 (Gee); Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 (Foust).) This is so because a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and “error must be affirmatively shown.” (Gee, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416 ; Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187 .) By omitt | 1 | 1 |
Foust v. San Jose Construction Co.green2 sentences2022(Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 .) “ ‘[I]f the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.’ ” (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 (Gee); Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 (Foust).) This is so because a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and “error must be affirmatively shown.” (Gee, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416 ; Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187 .) By omitt 2022(Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 .) “ ‘[I]f the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.’ ” (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 (Gee); Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 (Foust).) This is so because a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and “error must be affirmatively shown.” (Gee, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416 ; Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187 .) By omitt | 1 | 1 |
People v. Markhamgreen2 sentences1995(See People v. Markham (1989) 49 Cal.3d 63, 67, fn. 3 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 775 P.2d 1042 ].) Defendant concedes the facts themselves are undisputed, but argues we must either draw inferences from the facts in his favor, or remand for a fuller hearing. 1995(See People v. Markham (1989) 49 Cal.3d 63, 67, fn. 3 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 775 P.2d 1042 ].) Defendant concedes the facts themselves are undisputed, but argues we must either draw inferences from the facts in his favor, or remand for a fuller hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. County of Alamedagreen2 sentences1990(Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 794 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 840 , 710 P.2d 907 ]; Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741, 747 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 70 , 614 P.2d 728 , 12 A.L.R.4th 701 ]; Sanborn v. Chronicle Pub. 1990(Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 794 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 840 , 710 P.2d 907 ]; Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741, 747 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 70 , 614 P.2d 728 , 12 A.L.R.4th 701 ]; Sanborn v. Chronicle Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit Districtgreen2 sentences1990(Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 794 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 840 , 710 P.2d 907 ]; Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741, 747 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 70 , 614 P.2d 728 , 12 A.L.R.4th 701 ]; Sanborn v. Chronicle Pub. 1990(Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 794 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 840 , 710 P.2d 907 ]; Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741, 747 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 70 , 614 P.2d 728 , 12 A.L.R.4th 701 ]; Sanborn v. Chronicle Pub. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carothersgreen2 sentences1952As was said in People v. Carothers, 77 Cal.App.2d 252, 255 [ 175 P.2d 30 ], “Where an instruction on a particular point or points as given by the court is correct as far as it goes, and the only valid objection, if any, to it is that it is deficient or inadequate by reason of its generality, indefiniteness, or incompleteness, if defendant desires additional, amplified, explanatory, fuller, or more complete, elaborate, comprehensive, definite, specific or explicit instructions on such point or points, he must properly request the same, otherwise error cannot be predicated upon the failure to gi 1952As was said in People v. Carothers, 77 Cal.App.2d 252, 255 [ 175 P.2d 30 ], “Where an instruction on a particular point or points as given by the court is correct as far as it goes, and the only valid objection, if any, to it is that it is deficient or inadequate by reason of its generality, indefiniteness, or incompleteness, if defendant desires additional, amplified, explanatory, fuller, or more complete, elaborate, comprehensive, definite, specific or explicit instructions on such point or points, he must properly request the same, otherwise error cannot be predicated upon the failure to gi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
green
1 sentence2022(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541 .) The trial court granted Fuller’s motion to quash on the ground that “[t]he general rule is that discovery is not available in restraining order matters, and [Perez] has not established that the information sought would be relevant, admissible, or would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” It is true that some courts have reasoned that, “[t]here is no provision under section 527.6 allowing for discovery, and in any case, under the civil harassment scheme there is insufficient time in which to cond uct discovery.” (Thomas v. Quin | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center
green
1 sentence2022(Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 .) “ ‘[I]f the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.’ ” (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 (Gee); Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 (Foust).) This is so because a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and “error must be affirmatively shown.” (Gee, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416 ; Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187 .) By omitt | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Krinsky v. Doe 6
green
1 sentence2022“We review a ruling on a motion to quash, like other discovery orders, for abuse of discretion.” (Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 10 Cal.5th 329 , 359.) This is a deferential standard, which means “a reviewing court generally will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial court and will not set aside the trial court’s decision unless ‘there was “no legal justification” for the order granting or denying the discovery in question.’ [Citation.]” (Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1161 .) Generally, a party “may obtain discovery regarding 5 any matter | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Johnson v. State of California
green
2 sentences1990Among the factors relevant to the distinction, the court mentioned “the extent to which governmental liability might impair free exercise of the [agency’s] function . . . .” (Id. at p. 230.) Building on this precedent, the leading case of Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 *1560 Cal.2d 782 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 240 , 447 P.2d 352 ] provided a fuller analysis that underlies current interpretation of Government Code section 820.2. 1990Among the factors relevant to the distinction, the court mentioned “the extent to which governmental liability might impair free exercise of the [agency’s] function . . . .” (Id. at p. 230.) Building on this precedent, the leading case of Johnson v. State of California (1968) 69 *1560 Cal.2d 782 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 240 , 447 P.2d 352 ] provided a fuller analysis that underlies current interpretation of Government Code section 820.2. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Black
green
2 sentences1956In the case of People v. Black, 73 Cal.App. 13 [ 238 P. 374 ], cited by appellant, the appellant therein offered a correct instruction on confessions which was' refused by the trial court, and the court further advised the jury that the question of whether a confession was free and voluntary was for the court to decide, and that that question had been disposed of. 1956In the case of People v. Black, 73 Cal.App. 13 [ 238 P. 374 ], cited by appellant, the appellant therein offered a correct instruction on confessions which was' refused by the trial court, and the court further advised the jury that the question of whether a confession was free and voluntary was for the court to decide, and that that question had been disposed of. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.