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 1 courts 2022–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shenefield v. Shenefield
green
2 sentences2026As a general rule, “[w]hen sanctions are at issue, due process can be satisfied if the court gives a clear warning identifying the anticipated grounds for the sanctions or if those grounds are identified by the opposing party, and the court provides counsel with an opportunity to respond at least orally.” (Shenefield v. Shenefield (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 619 , 631-632.) We agree with plaintiff that neither USD nor the trial judge specifically suggested her deposition conduct would be relevant to choosing a sanction. 2025“When sanctions are at issue, due process can be satisfied if the court gives a clear warning identifying the anticipated grounds for the sanctions or if those grounds are identified by the opposing party, and the court provides counsel with an opportunity to respond at least orally.” (Shenefield, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at pp. 631-632.) Strictly construed, Philip’s sanctions motion did not adequately notify Iuliia of the grounds upon which the family law court ultimately imposed sanctions. | 5 | 2022–2026 |
Deyo v. Kilbourne
green
2 sentences2026A court, however, “must examine the entire record in determining whether the ultimate sanction should be 21 imposed.” (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 796 .) In this case, plaintiff knew her deposition conduct was well documented in the record that was before the court on the day USD’s motion for terminating sanctions was heard. 2025A court, however, “must examine the entire record in determining whether the ultimate sanction should be 21 imposed.” (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 796 .) In this case, plaintiff knew her deposition conduct was well documented in the record that was before the court on the day USD’s motion for terminating sanctions was heard. | 2 | 2025–2026 |
In Re Marriage of Flaherty
green
2 sentences2022Due Process Requirements Were Met Due process requires “notice, an opportunity to respond, and a hearing.” (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 .) The purpose of due process is to provide affected persons with the right to be heard “ ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” (Rodriguez v. Department of Real Estate (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1296 .) When sanctions are at issue, due process can be satisfied if the court gives a clear warning identifying the anticipated grounds for the sanctions or if those grounds are identified by the opposing party, and the court p 2022“Due process requires ‘notice, an opportunity to respond, and a hearing.’ (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 .) The purpose of due process is to provide affected persons with the right to be heard ‘ “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ’ [Citation.] When sanctions are at issue, due process can be satisfied if the court gives a clear warning identifying the anticipated grounds for the sanctions or if those grounds are identified by the opposing party, and the court provides counsel with an opportunity to respond at least orally.” (Shenefield v. Shenefield (2022) | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Barrientos v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2024“Due process mandates adequate notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of sanctions. [Citation.] The trial court may raise the issue of sanctions on its own motion but, in doing so, it must give notice of its intent to impose sanctions.” (Barrientos v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 63, 70 , italics omitted.) “When sanctions are at issue, due process can be satisfied if the court gives a clear warning identifying the anticipated grounds for the sanctions or if those grounds are identified . . . and the court provides counsel with an opportunity to respond at least | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re the Marriage of Quinlan
green
1 sentence2022(In re Marriage of Quinlan, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 1423 .) Jennifer first requested sanctions February 20, 2019, in her response to Mark’s request for joint legal and physical custody of their child. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Rodriguez v. Department of Real Estate
green
1 sentence2022Due Process Requirements Were Met Due process requires “notice, an opportunity to respond, and a hearing.” (In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 654 .) The purpose of due process is to provide affected persons with the right to be heard “ ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” (Rodriguez v. Department of Real Estate (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1296 .) When sanctions are at issue, due process can be satisfied if the court gives a clear warning identifying the anticipated grounds for the sanctions or if those grounds are identified by the opposing party, and the court p | 1 | 2022–2022 |