second day hearing (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

second day hearing in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1922–2025 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in California.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Cryer v. Cryer green
calctapp · 2011
1 sentence

2025(In re Marriage of Cryer, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1054 .) Yet rather than presenting the evidence needed to give the court a clear understanding of the parties’ current circumstances, husband appeared on 29 the second day of the hearing, waived any further questioning of wife, and submitted the matter for decision.

12025–2025
Leydon v. Alexander green
calctapp · 1989
1 sentence

2023Prior to the second day of the hearing, Saks filed a brief with the trial court clarifying that Leydon concerned a former version of section 527.6 that defined “harassment” as a “knowing and willful course of conduct” (Leydon, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 4 ; see Stats. 1987, ch. 1493, § 1), and that section 527.6 had since been amended to broaden the definition of “harassment” to also include “unlawful violence” and “a credible threat of violence” (§ 527.6, subd. (b)(3)).

12023–2023
Arrieta v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. green
calctapp · 1976
1 sentence

2022(Arrieta, supra, 59 Cal.App.3d at p. 327 .) One of the grounds for appeal asserted by the Arrieta plaintiff was that “he had the power to revoke the right of the arbitrators to proceed.” In response, the appellate court wrote: “An agreement to submit to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon grounds for revocation of any contract.

12022–2022
People v. Reed green
calctapp · 2010
1 sentence

2022Unlike in People v. Reed (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1144-1145 , here the court afforded Kocontes the time to make his case for a new trial.

12022–2022
Bancroft v. Bancroft green
· 1918
2 sentences

1922(Bancroft v. Bancroft, 178 Cal. 352 [ 173 Pac. 582 ].) The incomplete condition of the record likewise makes it quite impossible for us to declare that the exclusion of the evidence offered by defendant on the second day of the hearing, concerning the previous relations of plaintiff with a man named Balin, was prejudicial, for the reason that evidence on that point may have been received and considered by the court, so far as the record discloses, on the first day of the hearing.

1922(Bancroft v. Bancroft, 178 Cal. 352 [ 173 Pac. 582 ].) The incomplete condition of the record likewise makes it quite impossible for us to declare that the exclusion of the evidence offered by defendant on the second day of the hearing, concerning the previous relations of plaintiff with a man named Balin, was prejudicial, for the reason that evidence on that point may have been received and considered by the court, so far as the record discloses, on the first day of the hearing.

11922–1922

Where else courts name it

NY 13 (1991–2025) OH 6 (2013–2026) CA 5 (1922–2025) TX 4 (1976–2016) AZ 3 (2019–2022) TN 2 (2004–2024) IN 2 (2013–2018) MD 2 (2002–2013) VT 2 (2011–2012) ME 2 (2018–2019) CO 2 (2012–2012) IA 2 (2020–2020) IL 2 (2018–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check