All Case Citations - Complete List

All Case Citations - Complete List

All Case Citations - Complete List

Last updated: September 05, 2025

This page contains case citations referenced in California probate appellate opinions. Each citation includes links to the cases that cite it and contextual information where available.

📊 Categorized View 📄 All Cases ➕ Expand All ➖ Collapse All
Jump to: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

1

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.4th+816"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">1 Cal.4th 816 (1991) 1 Cal.4th 816</a>

  • M.M. v. D.V.: M. alleged that he was entitled to status as a presumed father under the principles of due process and equal protection set forth in Adoption of Kelsey S. (1992) (Kelsey S. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.App.4th+1446"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">10 Cal.App.4th 1446 (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Stroh (1992) (Stroh) points raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered, because such consideration would deprive the respondent of an opportunity to counter the argum... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Stroh (1992) (Stroh) points raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered, because such consideration would deprive the respondent of an opportunity to counter the argum... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="101+Cal.App.4th+278"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">101 Cal.App.4th 278 (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 278</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: County of Yuba (2002) ; see ibid. “Appellant’s brief leaves the reader mystified as to what was introduced at trial and why critical evidence was not”.) The $300, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="103+Cal.App.4th+1397"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">103 Cal.App.4th 1397 (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1397</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Pacific Bell (2002) denying procedurally improper request for sanctions.) We also decline to impose sanctions on our own motion. 34 5. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="108+Cal.App.4th+976"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">108 Cal.App.4th 976 (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 976</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Franchise Tax Bd. (2003) .) In part VII, post, we will hold that the trial court properly vacated the default, properly did not hold a default prove-up, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="109+Cal.App.4th+302"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">109 Cal.App.4th 302 (2002) 109 Cal.App.4th 302</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: City of Buena Park (2003) plaintiffs could not challenge older hotel stay ordinance, or portions of related provision not altered by later ordinance; Napa Citizens for Honest Govt. v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: City of Buena Park (2003) plaintiffs could not challenge older hotel stay ordinance, or portions of related provision not altered by later ordinance; Napa Citizens for Honest Govt. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="110+Cal.App.4th+36"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">110 Cal.App.4th 36 (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 36</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="115+Cal.App.4th+168"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">115 Cal.App.4th 168 (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 168</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Matsushita Electric Corp. of 8Here, Ginsberg mentions only the waiver requirement. 33 America (2004) .) The record here does not evince any unfairness to Ginsberg and therefore does not support a find... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="121+Cal.App.4th+1211"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">121 Cal.App.4th 1211 (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1211</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: LGCC, 31 LLC (2004) same.) But where a cause of action seeks to recover for harms to the corporation, the shareholders have no direct cause of action “because a corporation exists as a separate legal... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="136+Cal.App.4th+674"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">136 Cal.App.4th 674 (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 674</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="138+Cal.App.4th+1261"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">138 Cal.App.4th 1261 (2005) 138 Cal.App.4th 1261</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.App.5th+864"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">14 Cal.App.5th 864 (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 864</a>

  • Ring v. Harmon: App.4th at pp. 164-165 finding defendant committed elder abuse both by receiving fees paid through loan proceeds and by assisting another in misappropriating loan proceeds; Mahan, supra, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="142+Cal.App.4th+937"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">142 Cal.App.4th 937 (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 937</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) -943, 965-967 affirming writ of mandate requiring removal of permit condition that did not apply to later appropriators... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) -943, 965-967 affirming writ of mandate requiring removal of permit condition that did not apply to later appropriators... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="147+Cal.App.4th+555"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">147 Cal.App.4th 555 (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th 555</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Kern Delta Water Dist. (2007) (North Kern).) We will also discuss the superior court's finding under the appurtenancy rule, which is not addressed in the case law... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Kern Delta Water Dist. (2007) (North Kern).) We will also discuss the superior court's finding under the appurtenancy rule, which is not addressed in the case law... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="148+Cal.App.4th+663"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">148 Cal.App.4th 663 (2006) 148 Cal.App.4th 663</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="154+Cal.App.4th+339"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">154 Cal.App.4th 339 (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 339</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: App.4th 189, 208; In re Marriage of Ruelas (2007) ; In re Marriage of Murray (2002) 101 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.App.4th+836"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">16 Cal.App.4th 836 (1992) 16 Cal.App.4th 836</a>

  • Robertson v. Saadat: Plaintiff does not raise that issue on appeal, and we therefore express no opinion whether any such impediment exists. 7 Furthermore, nothing in this opinion should be read to affect the respective ri... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="169+Cal.App.4th+1385"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">169 Cal.App.4th 1385 (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1385</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: Superior Court (2009) , in which we “discussed the scope of directors’ inspection rights, in terms of their intended function of promoting the directors’ proper exercise of fiduciary duties to the cor... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="169+Cal.App.4th+253"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">169 Cal.App.4th 253 (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 253</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="177+Cal.App.4th+1466"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">177 Cal.App.4th 1466 (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1466</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: They contend a general disinheritance clause may defeat only a claim brought by an unknown child born after the execution of a will or trust under section 21620 because section 21621—which they argue... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="177+Cal.App.4th+59"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">177 Cal.App.4th 59 (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 59</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: D & M Cabinets (2009) .) Because Michael and Joseph do not argue the order was void, except as a consequence of the court’s lack of jurisdiction to 29 C. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="178+Cal.App.4th+1020"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">178 Cal.App.4th 1020 (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="178+Cal.App.4th+120"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">178 Cal.App.4th 120 (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 120</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="179+Cal.App.4th+775"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">179 Cal.App.4th 775 (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 775</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: 32 Anderson (2009) “a derivative suit is one in which the shareholder seeks ‘redress of the wrong to the corporation’”.) “‘The stockholder’s individual suit, on the other hand... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.4th+739"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">18 Cal.4th 739 (1997) 18 Cal.4th 739</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Brobeck, Phlegar & Harrison (1998) -750, quoting Budd v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.App.4th+559"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">18 Cal.App.4th 559 (1992) 18 Cal.App.4th 559</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Nielsen (2005) 130 surviving spouse and the other one-half belongs to the decedent.” Probate Code section 6401, subdivision (a) states: “As to community property... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="183+Cal.App.4th+559"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">183 Cal.App.4th 559 (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 559</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Price (2010) .) When a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Price (2010) .) When a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="189+Cal.App.4th+1399"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">189 Cal.App.4th 1399 (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1399</a>

  • Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management: AG Seal Beach, LLC (2010) .) When more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the undisputed evidence, “‘“‘the determination of whether the evidence supports one conclusion or the other is fo... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="191+Cal.App.4th+357"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">191 Cal.App.4th 357 (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 357</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC (2010) .) We review underlying factual findings for substantial evidence, and apply de novo review to legal issues. (City of Oakland v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC (2010) .) We review underlying factual findings for substantial evidence, and apply de novo review to legal issues. (City of Oakland v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="193+Cal.App.4th+602"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">193 Cal.App.4th 602 (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 602</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: City of Coronado (2011) ). If an actual controversy exists, it is within the trial court's discretion to grant or deny declaratory relief. (Gilb v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: City of Coronado (2011) ). If an actual controversy exists, it is within the trial court's discretion to grant or deny declaratory relief. (Gilb v. [context]

2

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="206+Cal.App.4th+1054"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">206 Cal.App.4th 1054 (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1054</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="212+Cal.App.4th+374"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">212 Cal.App.4th 374 (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 374</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="214+Cal.App.4th+743"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">214 Cal.App.4th 743 (2012) 214 Cal.App.4th 743</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: A. (2013) (Scott).) Moreover, “ ‘where written documents are the foundation of an action and are attached to the complaint and incorporated therein by reference, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="229+Cal.App.4th+879"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">229 Cal.App.4th 879 (2013) 229 Cal.App.4th 879</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="239+Cal.App.4th+689"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">239 Cal.App.4th 689 (2014) 239 Cal.App.4th 689</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="241+Cal.App.4th+425"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">241 Cal.App.4th 425 (2014) 241 Cal.App.4th 425</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: City of Vallejo (2015) .) Where damages are an element of a cause of action, the cause of action does not accrue until the damages have been sustained. (City of Vista v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: City of Vallejo (2015) .) Where damages are an element of a cause of action, the cause of action does not accrue until the damages have been sustained. (City of Vista v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="243+Cal.App.4th+1036"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">243 Cal.App.4th 1036 (2014) 243 Cal.App.4th 1036</a>

  • People v. Braum: In response to the Permanent Ordinance, certain medical- marijuana collectives filed suit seeking an injunction on the grounds that the ordinance denied equal protection to collectives that had not pr... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.App.4th+409"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">26 Cal.App.4th 409 (1993) 26 Cal.App.4th 409</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.App.5th+125"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">26 Cal.App.5th 125 (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 125</a>

  • Conservatorship of Brokken: Superior Court (2018) .) The Plain Language of Section 2640.1 Does Not Support the Attorney Fees Award First, we reject respondents’ contention that appellant or her counsel agreed respondents are leg... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.4th+486"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">28 Cal.4th 486 (2001) 28 Cal.4th 486</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: For instance, to address Patricia’s sometimes hundreds of emails a day to counsel, (2002) [context]

3

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.App.5th+655"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">3 Cal.App.5th 655 (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655</a>

  • Pearce v. Briggs: Hugo H. (2016) as a general rule, respondents who fail to file a cross-appeal cannot claim error in connection with the opposing party’s appeal; Drell v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.4th+685"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">37 Cal.4th 685 (2004) 37 Cal.4th 685</a>

4

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.App.5th+665"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">43 Cal.App.5th 665 (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 665</a>

  • Robertson v. Saadat: We thus consider forfeited any challenge to the trial court’s ruling striking the allegations concerning other patients, and express no opinion on the merits of that ruling. [context]

5

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.4th+421"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">51 Cal.4th 421 (2009) 51 Cal.4th 421</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Control Bd. (2011) -429; § 5101.) Abatti has not established that he or other District farmers have filed such statements with the State Board, and the State Board has recognized the District, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Control Bd. (2011) -429; § 5101.) Abatti has not established that he or other District farmers have filed such statements with the State Board, and the State Board has recognized the District, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.App.4th+1592"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">51 Cal.App.4th 1592 (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1592</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: People v. 25 Peoples (1997) [context]

6

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.App.5th+1078"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">60 Cal.App.5th 1078 (2020) 60 Cal.App.5th 1078</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021) -1090 same; In re Nathan E. (2021) 61 Cal. [context]

7

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="7+Cal.4th+1057"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">7 Cal.4th 1057 (1993) 7 Cal.4th 1057</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) matters subject to judicial notice must be relevant to issues raised on appeal, overruled on another ground in In re Tobacco Cases II (2007) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="71+Cal.App.4th+948"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">71 Cal.App.4th 948 (1998) 71 Cal.App.4th 948</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Hetrick (1999) .) The District's predecessor, the California Development Company (CDC), was formed in the late 1890's to irrigate the Imperial Valley with diverted Colorado River water. (See Thayer v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Hetrick (1999) .) The District's predecessor, the California Development Company (CDC), was formed in the late 1890's to irrigate the Imperial Valley with diverted Colorado River water. (See Thayer v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="73+Cal.App.4th+8"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">73 Cal.App.4th 8 (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 8</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: 9 demonstrated through the specific circumstances identified in section 21621. Relevant here, the child will not receive a share of the estate if the objecting party establishes... [context]

9

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="91+Cal.App.4th+342"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">91 Cal.App.4th 342 (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Bd. of Supervisors (2001) , 390 petitioners contended that traffic measures in specific plan invalidated circulation element of general plan; holding that attack on general plan was untimely. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Bd. of Supervisors (2001) , 390 petitioners contended that traffic measures in specific plan invalidated circulation element of general plan; holding that attack on general plan was untimely. [context]

A

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="213+Cal.App.4th+1092"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ABCO, LLC v. Eversley (2012) 213 Cal.App.4th 1092</a>

  • Tubbs v. Berkowitz: She acknowledges that trust was revocable and amendable and included Berkowitz’s separate property and community property share. 7 845.) We review de novo the court’s grant of summary judgment. (ABCO. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="137+Cal.App.4th+1244"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aaron v. Dunham (2005) 137 Cal.App.4th 1244</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Dunham (2006) landowner’s express permission defeats assertion of a prescriptive easement.) There is evidence in the record that the owners of Parcels in fact gave permission to Farkas to use the Trad... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="136+Cal.App.4th+910"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aaronoff v. Martinez (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 910</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.2d+280"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">17 Cal.2d 280</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 288 (Abelleira) “A court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine a case where the type of proceeding or the amount in controversy is beyond the jurisdic... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="86+Cal.App.4th+1324"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Adams v. Aerojet (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 1324</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.+629"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">17 Cal. 629</a>

  • Pearce v. Briggs: Lansing (1861) .) Ruth’s 1983 will, provided, in Article THIRD: “I declare that for convenience or through inadvertence title to some property owned by myself and my husband may be held of record in t... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="116+Cal.App.4th+368"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Addam v. Superior (2003) 116 Cal.App.4th 368</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Superior Court (2004) courts should presume attorneys 24 behave ethically and honor duties of confidentiality.) Thus, replacement counsel will not be in a position to exploit such information. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="48+Cal.App.5th+922"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Administration v. Superior (2019) 48 Cal.App.5th 922</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Superior Court (2020) ; Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) .) While “ ‘appellate courts are loath to exercise their discretion to review rulings at the pleading stage... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.5th+381"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Administration v. Superior (2020) 11 Cal.5th 381</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: App.5th 922, 929; Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) .) While “ ‘appellate courts are loath to exercise their discretion to review rulings at the pleading stage... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="236+Cal.App.4th+91"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Agam v. Gavra (2014) 236 Cal.App.4th 91</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Gavra (2015) .) 3 The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="236+Cal.App.4th+1315"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Agency v. Dhaliwal (2014) 236 Cal.App.4th 1315</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Dhaliwal (2015) we review a court’s ruling based on the record as it existed at the time of the ruling.) Under the ninth term, the provisions of the agreement affecting the Minors’ interests... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="128+Cal.App.4th+1093"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Agency v. McDonald (2004) 128 Cal.App.4th 1093</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: 14 the California Constitution confers broad authority on the superior courts. (Donaldson v. National Marine, Inc. (2005) ; see Cal. Const., art. VI, § 10 except as otherwise provided... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="64+Cal.App.5th+603"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="168+Cal.App.4th+35"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aguilar v. Aguilar (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 35</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.4th+826"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aguilar v. Atlantic (2000) 25 Cal.4th 826</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) .) “Summary judgment is appropriate only when ‘all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled... [context]
  • Guardianship of Saul H.: App.5th at pp. 569, 574.) The Legislature did not specify a burden of proof and, as the Court of Appeal noted, preponderance of the evidence is the default burden of proof for findings of fact in civi... [context]
  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) (Aguilar).) I. [context]
  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) generally, “the ‘party desiring relief ’ bears the burden of proof ”.) Because section 155 does not specify a burden of proof, [context]
  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) [context]
  • Tubbs v. Berkowitz: Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) Tubbs does not dispute Berkowitz could transfer the assets in the surviving spouse’s trust to himself. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.App.5th+1150"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aguilar v. Atlantic (2016) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 850, 856.)” (Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) .) 6 II Rules of Court Violations Rule 3. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.4th+14"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2000) 26 Cal.4th 14</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: 13 The Donovan court held rescission of the contract was warranted and concluded the court of appeal erred “to the extent it suggested that a unilateral mistake of fact affords a ground for rescission... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.4th+974"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aguilar v. Lerner (2002) 32 Cal.4th 974</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.3d+93"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ahmanson & Co. (1969) 1 Cal.3d 93</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: F. Ahmanson & Co. (1969) 1 Cal.3d 93, 108 (Jones); accord, Sheley v. Harrop (2017) 9 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="222+Cal.App.4th+1010"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ahn v. Kumho Tire U.S.A., Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: App.5th 682, 690 (Reck); Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) –1017.) 7 However, where satisfied that a party is entitled to fees and costs pursuant to section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.4th+894"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alan v. American (2005) 40 Cal.4th 894</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.5th+961"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alan v. American (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 961</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.2d+375"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">46 Cal.2d 375</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375, 383.) “Malice ‘may range anywhere from open hostility to indifference. Citations.’ ” (Soukup, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 292. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="113+U.S.+89"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">113 U.S. 89</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Godey, .)” (Jorgensen, at pp. 20–21.) “Where one is justified in relying, and does in fact rely, upon false representations, his right of action is not destroyed merely because opportunities for exami... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.3d+190"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190</a>

  • People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation: Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 195 “…Where exceptions to a general rule are specified by statute, other exceptions are not to be implied or presumed. Citations.”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="234+Cal.App.4th+41"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Allen v. City (2014) 234 Cal.App.4th 41</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: City of Sacramento (2015) (“Allen”) “when legal argument with citation to authority is not furnished on a particular point, we may treat the point as forfeited and pass it without consideration”.) c. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="94+Cal.App.4th+1270"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Allen v. Smith (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1270</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Smith (2002) reversal of judgment necessarily reversed award of attorney fees, even though award of fees was separately appealable and appellant did not appeal from it. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.3d+172"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Allen v. State (1977) 20 Cal.3d 172</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1977) 20 Cal.3d 172, 178 no harm requirement in finding fraudulent and deceitful acts.) Our independent findings mirror the facts the hearing judge found to support culpability under count... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.3d+12"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Allen v. State (1977) 20 Cal.3d 12</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1977) 20 Cal.3d 12, 17 no harm requirement in finding fraudulent and deceitful acts; Barreiro v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.3d+912"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Allen v. State (1969) 2 Cal.3d 912</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="59+Cal.4th+1029"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alliance v. Superior (2012) 59 Cal.4th 1029</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: Superior Court (2014) “It is a maxim of statutory interpretation that courts should give meaning to every word of a statute and should avoid constructions that would render any word or provision surpl... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="246+Cal.App.4th+761"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Assn. v. Carson (2014) 246 Cal.App.4th 761</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Carson (2016) .) We find no comparable reflection of legislative intent to impose a mandatory obligation on trial courts considering attorney fee requests under Corporations Code section 16701. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="115+Cal.App.4th+537"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Altizer v. Fernandez (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Super DVD, Inc. (2004) . 23 Mindful that the Attachment Law was enacted in an effort to rectify due process problems in a predecessor statute (Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.App.5th+331"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Altizer v. Highsmith (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 331</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A renewed judgment may be vacated if the moving party could assert any defense that would defeat a direct action on the underlying judgment, such as lack of enforceability or a statute‑of‑limitations...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="551+U.S.+47"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">551 U.S. 47</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="517+U.S.+559"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">517 U.S. 559</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="116+S.Ct.+1589"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">116 S.Ct. 1589</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Ed.2d 809, (BMW).) We recently explained the basis of these constraints: ‘The imposition of “grossly excessive or arbitrary” awards is constitutionally prohibited... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.4th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">America v. State (1997) 19 Cal.4th 1</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: State Bd. of Equalization (1998) .) The California Legislature has conferred broad quasi-legislative authority on the Secretary of the CDCR to “prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the admini... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.3d+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Amico v. Board (1973) 11 Cal.3d 1</a>

  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 18−19.) 12 supra, 44 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="237+Cal.App.4th+1392"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Amin v. Superior (2014) 237 Cal.App.4th 1392</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="158+Cal.App.4th+1582"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Amtower v. Photon (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582</a>

  • Dunlap v. Mayer: Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) discussing in limine motions used to dispose of causes of action.) “The purpose of the pretrial is to expedite the proceedings and to facilitate the correct determination... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="196+Cal.App.4th+722"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Andersen v. Hunt (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 722</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: Hunt (2011) , appellants contend section 6100.5 also applies to trusts or trust amendments that, in content and complexity, closely resemble a will or codicil. (Andersen... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.App.4th+1481"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Andersen v. Superior (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1481</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="29+Cal.2d+208"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">29 Cal.2d 208</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: Superior Court of San Joaquin County (1946) 29 Cal.2d 208, 214.) In Estate of Reed, for example, the 26 charities successfully moved to set aside a 1954 probate court order for failure of notice more... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.5th+309"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angeles v. Financial Indemnity Company (2017) 5 Cal.5th 309</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.: Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2016) .) If the defendant subsequently fails to appear as required and the failure to appear is not excused, the court must declare the bail forfeited. (§ 1305, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.App.5th+559"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angeles v. Financial Indemnity Company (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 559</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.5th+46"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angeles v. Pricewaterhouse (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="107+Cal.App.5th+160"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angeles v. Superior (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 160</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="131+Cal.App.4th+417"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angeles v. Superior (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 417</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Superior Court (2005) & fn. 12 similar, regarding clergy-penitent communications privilege.) 23 prospective witnesses; and (4) Yim’s finances. (See McDermott, supra, 10 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="176+Cal.+194"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">176 Cal. 194</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="121+Cal.+223"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">121 Cal. 223</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.+485"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">67 Cal. 485</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.4th+160"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angelucci v. Century (2006) 41 Cal.4th 160</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="121+Cal.App.4th+353"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Angelucci v. Century (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 353</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.2d+805"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">44 Cal.2d 805</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="508+U.S.+429"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">508 U.S. 429</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: Byers & Anderson, Inc. (1993) -436 113 S. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="113+S.Ct.+2167"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">113 S.Ct. 2167</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.4th+128"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apple Inc. v. Superior Court (2011) 56 Cal.4th 128</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Superior Court (2013) .) In determining legislative intent, “ ‘we first look to the plain meaning of the statutory language, then to its legislative history... [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Superior Court (2013) .) In determining legislative intent, “ ‘we first look to the plain meaning of the statutory language, then to its legislative history... [context]
  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: Superior Court (2013) .) In doing so, we “begin by examining the statutory language, giving the words their usual and ordinary meaning.” (Day v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="135+Cal.App.4th+1392"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Arcadia v. State (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: State Water Resources Control Board (2006) review is de novo, except where the trial court made foundational factual findings, which are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.)7 B. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: State Water Resources Control Board (2006) review is de novo, except where the trial court made foundational factual findings, which are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.)7 B. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="373+U.S.+546"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">373 U.S. 546</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="376+U.S.+340"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">376 U.S. 340</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: California (1964) (Arizona II).) The Court defined present perfected rights as rights perfected as of June 25, 1929, the effective date of the Project Act. (Ibid.) In 1979... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: California (1964) (Arizona II).) The Court defined present perfected rights as rights perfected as of June 25, 1929, the effective date of the Project Act. (Ibid.) In 1979... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="439+U.S.+419"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">439 U.S. 419</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="567+U.S.+387"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">567 U.S. 387</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="424+U.S.+351"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">424 U.S. 351</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Bica (1976) .) For these reasons, Congress assigned to federal authorities, not state courts, the determination whether a child’s request for SIJ status is bona fide. (J. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="106+Cal.App.4th+824"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Arkopharma, Inc. (2002) 106 Cal.App.4th 824</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) .) “ ‘If the complaint fails to plead, or if the defendant negates, any essential element of a particular cause of action, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="74+Cal.App.4th+697"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Arman v. Bank (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 697</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.4th+83"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Armendariz v. Foundation (1999) 24 Cal.4th 83</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.4th+4"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Arnett v. Dal (1995) 14 Cal.4th 4</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.3d+785"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Arnett v. Dal (1988) 50 Cal.3d 785</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 798–799.) As Waste Connections distills its position, “The provisions in section 41821.5 applying to landfill data reporting are actually quite simple. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 798–799.) As Waste Connections distills its position, “The provisions in section 41821.5 applying to landfill data reporting are actually quite simple. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="111+Cal.App.4th+273"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Artal v. Allen (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 273</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="112+Cal.App.4th+16"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Arts v. Lujan (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 16</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Lujan (2003) .) Ginsberg contends that each of the other theories he asserted below was a correct one that warrants affirmance of the summary judgment. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.5th+923"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Artus v. Gramercy (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 923</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: 19 property” under the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement or based on Schwarcz’s obligations as a former fiduciary. “The propriety of a trial court’s denial of declaratory relief involves a tw... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.4th+962"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aubry v. Tri (1991) 2 Cal.4th 962</a>

  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) .) “The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law” that we also review de novo. (People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.App.5th+32"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aubry v. Tri (2018) 37 Cal.App.5th 32</a>

  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Jacobo (2019) .) This 5“The settlor is the person creating the trust. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="230+Cal.App.4th+1516"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Aulisio v. Bancroft (2013) 230 Cal.App.4th 1516</a>

  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Bancroft (2014) [context]
  • Donkin v. Donkin: Bancroft (2014) –1520 a self-represented trustee does not engage in the unauthorized practice of law under Ziegler when he is also the sole beneficiary... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.4th+1100"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Authority v. Alameda (2010) 52 Cal.4th 1100</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Alameda Produce Market, LLC (2011) .) Instead, we must “ ‘follow the public policy choices actually discernible from the Legislature’s statutory enactments.’ ” (Id. at p. 1114. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.App.5th+835"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Avila v. Southern (2017) 20 Cal.App.5th 835</a>

  • Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management: Southern California Specialty Care, Inc. (2018) -844.) With respect to the standard of review, “‘there is no uniform standard of review for evaluating an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.2d+31"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">34 Cal.2d 31</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: City Council of Los Angeles (1949) 34 Cal.2d 31, 41: “Questions of reasonableness and necessity depend on matters of fact”; Carter v. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: City Council of Los Angeles (1949) 34 Cal.2d 31, 41: “Questions of reasonableness and necessity depend on matters of fact”; Carter v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="219+Cal.App.4th+337"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ayres v. City (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 337</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Entercom Sacramento, LLC (2013) : “Because necessity is a question of fact, the issue for us is whether the trial court’s determination that the additional expenditures were not necessary is supported... [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Entercom Sacramento, LLC (2013) : “Because necessity is a question of fact, the issue for us is whether the trial court’s determination that the additional expenditures were not necessary is supported... [context]

B

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.4th+168"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">B.H. v. County of San Bernardino (2013) 62 Cal.4th 168</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="124+Cal.App.4th+504"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Baba v. Board (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 504</a>

  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Board of Supervisors (2004) .) The tenants suggest that a trustee is not a “natural person” because a trustee takes only “representative actions . . . on behalf of a trust. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.App.5th+984"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bader v. Anderson (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 984</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: App.4th at p. 788; see Heshejin v. Rostami (2020) , fn. 10 “‘“a shareholder cannot bring a direct action for damages against management on the theory their alleged wrongdoing decreased the value of hi... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="79+Cal.App.4th+1106"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Badie v. Bank (1999) 79 Cal.App.4th 1106</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.App.4th+779"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A party forfeits any argument that is not supported by legal authority; unsupported points are deemed waived.
  • Herren v. George S.: Bank of America (1998) – 785), we note this new proposal does not seem materially different or any more meritorious than her argument that courts must make a threshold determination of the elder’s cap... [context]
  • Eyford v. Nord: Bank of America (1998) –785.) Respondents cite to Muzquiz v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Bank of America (1998) -785 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.; Stroh, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Bank of America (1998) -785 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.; Stroh, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.App.4th+7"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 7</a>

  • Dunlap v. Mayer: The Estate contested these statements and produced documents showing that in 1996 money was transferred to the two entities that were the assets of the Marital Trust. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="94+Cal.App.5th+789"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bailey v. Bailey (2025) 94 Cal.App.5th 789</a>

  • Johnson v. Estate of Williams: Bailey , 795 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="80+Cal.App.4th+977"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Balasubramanian v. San Diego Area (1999) 80 Cal.App.4th 977</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Sess.), May 1, 2001, pp. 3- 4, emphasis added.) “We must construe identical words in different parts of the same act or in different statutes relating to the same subject matter as having the same mea... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+794"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ball v. Fleet (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 794</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: FleetBoston Financial Corp. (2008) notwithstanding the existence of an actual controversy, a claim for declaratory relief that is “ ‘wholly derivative’ ” of a failed claim cannot stand. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.3d+564"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ballard v. Uribe (1985) 41 Cal.3d 564</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) Here, Kenton’s election to proceed without a reporter’s transcript leaves us unable to assess whether an abuse of discretion occurred. (See Vo v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="49+Cal.3d+881"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bank v. City (1988) 49 Cal.3d 881</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 888; Haworth, at p. 385.) That is precisely the type of review called for here. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.2d+601"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">5 Cal.2d 601</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.3d+202"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bank v. Younger (1970) 4 Cal.3d 202</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="143+Cal.App.4th+151"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Baptist v. Robinson (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 151</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Robinson (2006) .) Stacey’s reply brief raises several new issues. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.5th+376"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Schnitt (2016) .) Next, the trial court concluded that Richard failed to satisfy that burden. [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Schnitt (2016) (Baral).) At this stage, the defendant must make a “threshold showing” that the challenged claims arise from protected activity, which is defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 425. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="72+Cal.App.4th+175"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barbara v. Connell (1998) 72 Cal.App.4th 175</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Connell (1999) , fn. 4 statutory language should not be given literal meaning if it results in absurd consequences unintended by the Legislature.) He contends that, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="122+Cal.App.4th+17"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barbara v. Superior (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 17</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Superior Court (2004) .) That is true because the duty to preserve client confidences (Bus. & Prof. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.5th+822"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barefoot v. Jennings (2019) 8 Cal.5th 822</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Jennings (2020) § 17200 standing.) In the specific context of section 1820, “the proposed conservatee, spouse, domestic partner, relative, or other ‘interested’ agency, person... [context]
  • Estate of Tarlow: App.4th 1155, 1164.) And a demurrer is not an evidentiary motion to which such a presumption may be applied. (See Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) .) Barbara... [context]
  • Dunlap v. Mayer: Jennings (2020) –828.) Construing the words of section 24 with these precepts in mind, and with general tenets of statutory interpretation (see People v. [context]
  • Haggerty v. Thornton: Jennings (2020) .) Where, as here, interpretation of the instrument does not depend on disputed extrinsic evidence, we consider the issue de novo. (Gardenhire v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="166+Cal.App.4th+1303"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barefoot v. Jennings (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303</a>

  • Dunlap v. Mayer: Salcido (2008) –1311), persons with a present or future interest in a trust include those 5 persons’ successors in interest. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.App.5th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barefoot v. Jennings (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="7+Cal.3d+94"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barquis v. Merchants (1971) 7 Cal.3d 94</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 98 (Barquis)); and knowingly filing collection actions in the wrong states to obtain default judgments upon which improper garnishment orders may be obta... [context]
  • Schrage v. Schrage: Merchants Collection Assn. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 97-98, 99 default judgments erroneously entered in favor of a collection agency that knowingly filed “statutorily inadequate complaints” in the wrong cou... [context]
  • Capra v. Capra: If an action is filed in a court that has fundamental jurisdiction to try the matter but is not the proper venue, and the defendant does not object, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.5th+318"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barry v. State (2016) 2 Cal.5th 318</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: State Bar of California (2017) -328.) As explained by one court, “the statute reflects a clear preference for awarding fees and costs to prevailing 23 Attorneys filed a notice of appeal identifying fo... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.4th+1224"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barstow v. Mojave (1999) 23 Cal.4th 1224</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="244+Cal.App.4th+1262"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barstow v. Mojave (2014) 244 Cal.App.4th 1262</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Mojave Water Agency (2000) ; In re Marriage of Shimkus (2016) .) Reformation of a will involves the exercise of the court’s equitable powers. (Giammarrusco v. Simon (2009) 171 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="243+Cal.App.4th+1398"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bartlett v. Miller (2014) 243 Cal.App.4th 1398</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="215+Cal.App.4th+309"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 215 Cal.App.4th 309</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Superior Court (2013) .) Jurisdiction and venue can become intertwined, but in most actions, venue rules are not jurisdictional. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.App.4th+182"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Baughman v. State (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 182</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.App.5th+726"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bayramoglu v. Nationstar (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 726</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: LLC (2020) , fn. 4.) In any event, Brandy cannot show her execution of the revised Agreement was due to any mistake of law by Ms. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="65+Cal.2d+166"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">65 Cal.2d 166</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Vasold (1966) 65 Cal.2d 166, 172 “ ‘translating pain and anguish into dollars can, at best, be only an arbitrary allowance, and not a process of measurement’ ”... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.3d+345"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bean v. Los (1972) 9 Cal.3d 345</a>

  • People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation: App.2d 754, 759-760, disapproved on other grounds in In re Underwood (1973) 9 Cal.3d 345, 348.) Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation is not Entitled to a Favorable Interpretation of Rule 9 Although “P... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="29+Cal.App.5th+486"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Becerra v. Superior (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 486</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Superior Court (2018) ), they have also equated the “beneficially interested” test for standing in California to the injury-in-fact prong of the Article III test for standing in the federal courts (e. [context]
  • Schrage v. Schrage: Superior Court (2018) ; Fireman’s Fund Ins. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.4th+180"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Beckley-Cardy, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co. (2004) 35 Cal.4th 180</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Delfino (2005) .) The purpose of this limit on the trial court’s power—which is fundamental to appellate procedure—“ ‘is to protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction by preserving the status quo unti... [context]
  • Chui v. Chui: Delfino (2005) (Varian) discussing Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a).) In considering the analogous Code of Civil Procedure section that generally imposes a stay of proceedings “in... [context]
  • Maleti v. Wickers: Delfino (2005) [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Delfino (2005) .) In this step, a plaintiff “need only establish that his or her claim has ‘minimal merit’ to avoid being 9 stricken as a SLAPP.” (Soukup v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="205+Cal.App.4th+1039"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039</a>

  • Gomez v. Smith: Dahl (2012) -1056.) To establish a defendant committed the tort, a plaintiff must prove six elements. “First, the plaintiff must prove he or she had an expectancy of an inheritance. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="237+Cal.App.4th+546"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Behm v. Clear View Technologies (2014) 237 Cal.App.4th 546</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: 9 We need not and do not consider if the result would be different in the event of fraud by Scott because the trial court found there was insufficient evidence that Scott “furthered or encouraged” Bra... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.App.5th+465"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bell v. Clackamas County (2016) 11 Cal.App.5th 465</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: A. (2017) (Berman).) Since showing merely that the trial court sustained a motion for judgment on the pleadings for the wrong reason is insufficient to show reversible error (Stevenson Real Estate, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="209+Cal.App.4th+62"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bell v. H. F. Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: Cox, Inc. (2012) , fn. 7.) Second, even if we set aside its untimeliness, we are not persuaded by appellants’ sole authority in support of the aforequoted 17 argument, Goodman v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.App.4th+1011"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bell v. Shine (1994) 36 Cal.App.4th 1011</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Shine, Browne & Diamond (1995) -1023 trial court in an underlying personal injury action had subject matter jurisdiction to issue an order denying a claim under an attorney’s lien... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.App.4th+1382"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bell v. Wells (1997) 62 Cal.App.4th 1382</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Wells Fargo Bank (1998) -1388 The party must have taken positions that are so irreconcilable that . . . 'one necessarily excludes the other' .) It is not unreasonable, much less irreconcilable... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Wells Fargo Bank (1998) -1388 The party must have taken positions that are so irreconcilable that . . . 'one necessarily excludes the other' .) It is not unreasonable, much less irreconcilable... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="149+Cal.App.4th+836"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836</a>

  • Conservatorship of You Wei Dong: A party waives an issue when it neither raises the point nor supports it with reasoned argument and citations to authority. Consequently, unsupported assertions are deemed forfeited.
  • Maleti v. Wickers: County of Los Angeles (2007) (Benach).) In any event, the court’s ruling concerning the alter ego claim does not appear to have been a substantive determination. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="154+Cal.App.4th+1012"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1012</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="206+Cal.App.3d+912"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Beneficial Financial, Incorporated v. Durkee (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 912</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A judgment lien is extinguished if the certified copy of the renewal application is not recorded before the lien’s 10‑year term expires, even when the underlying judgment itself has been timely renewe...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.2d+540"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">47 Cal.2d 540</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="133+Cal.App.4th+347"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bennett v. Regents (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 347</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="148+Cal.App.4th+809"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Berg v. Traylor (2006) 148 Cal.App.4th 809</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Traylor (2007) (Berg) “ ‘a contract (or conveyance) of a minor may be avoided by any act or declaration disclosing an unequivocal intent to repudiate its binding force... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="223+Cal.App.4th+877"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bergeron v. Boyd (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 877</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: Boyd (2014) - 889 court appointed custody evaluator; McClintock v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.4th+794"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bernard v. Foley (2005) 39 Cal.4th 794</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: The trial court found it “true that in 2006 Layla was emotionally distressed,” but also concluded “Layla was not vulnerable . . . to the point where Anush . . . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="69+Cal.2d+90"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">69 Cal.2d 90</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: Committee of Bar Examiners (1968) 69 Cal.2d 90, 101–102; see In the Matter of Kinney (Review Dept. 2014) 5 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.3d+43"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bertero v. National General Insurance Company (1974) 13 Cal.3d 43</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: In recognition of the wrong done the victim of such a tort, settled law permits him or her to recover the cost of defending the prior action including reasonable attorney’s fees citations... [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: App.4th 1534, 1544.) “However, if the initiator acts in bad faith or withholds from counsel facts he knew or should have known would defeat a cause of action otherwise appearing from the information s... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.App.4th+919"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Betz v. Pankow (1992) 16 Cal.App.4th 919</a>

  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: Pankow (1993) .) When the evidence conflicts, we defer to the trial court’s factual findings when substantial evidence supports them. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.4th+1298"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Beyer v. Tahoe (2008) 47 Cal.4th 1298</a>

  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: County of Los Angeles (2010) .) Furthermore, when settlors transfer property to a revocable living trust, there is even more reason to conclude that the property’s title is held by the trustees, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.4th+27"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bidna v. Rosen (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 27</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Rosen (1993) (Bidna).) Abuse of process claims include lawsuits involving improper uses of the tools afforded litigants, such as the improper use of discovery (see Younger v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="161+Cal.App.4th+363"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bilafer v. Bilafer (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 363</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Bilafer (2008) .) The questions presented on appeal are whether a plaintiff must suffer an injury in order to have standing to sue under the FCRA in California courts, and, if so... [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Bilafer (2008) .) The case at bar does not present an exceptional or peculiar circumstance in which a court is empowered to modify the Residuary Trust. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.App.4th+952"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Binyon v. State (1992) 17 Cal.App.4th 952</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: State of California (1993) -955 “ ‘the judicial remedy of mandamus is not a civil action, but a special proceeding of a civil nature, which is available for specified purposes and for which the code p... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="174+Cal.App.4th+1534"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bisno v. Douglas (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1534</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Douglas Emmett Realty Fund 1988 (2009) .) “However, if the initiator acts in bad faith or withholds from counsel facts he knew or should have known would defeat a cause of action otherwise appearing f... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.3d+130"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bixby v. Pierno (1970) 4 Cal.3d 130</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="129+Cal.App.4th+36"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Blakemore v. Superior Court (2004) 129 Cal.App.4th 36</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: App.4th 603, 612.) When the motion seeks to strike allegations of punitive damages, however, the standard of review is de novo, because the “motion to strike, like a demurrer, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.3d+311"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Blank v. Kirwan (1984) 39 Cal.3d 311</a>

  • Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anon v. Narcotics Anon World Svcs: World Services charged Autonomous Region was merely the project of “certain dissident individuals.” These factual assertions are improper in a demurrer. (See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, [context]
  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating a reasonable possibility of curing the defect. (Ibid.) “ ‘To satisfy that burden on appeal... [context]
  • Turner v. Victoria: Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “Where the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, we consider whether the plaintiff could cure the defect by an amendment. [context]
  • Rallo v. O'Brian: The trustee submitted a complete copy of the operative Trust instruments signed by O’Brian that contain additional language in Article Two omitted 3 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank); Landmark Screens, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank).) 83 3. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank).) 83 3. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.App.5th+989"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Blech v. Blech (2017) 25 Cal.App.5th 989</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Blech (2018) ; Estate of Keller (1955) 134 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="214+Cal.App.4th+780"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Blech v. Blech (2012) 214 Cal.App.4th 780</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: A. (2013) (West), quoting § 761.020, subd. (c).) Thus, in an action brought under the statute, the plaintiff seeking to quiet title to real or personal property “shall name as defendants in the action... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.App.4th+620"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Blockburger v. United (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 620</a>

  • People v. Braum: Cuevas (1996) no bar to successive prosecutions where “offenses committed at different times and at different places”.) B. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="284+U.S.+299"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">284 U.S. 299</a>

  • People v. Braum: United States (1932) two narcotics sales, “although made to the same person, were distinct and separate sales made at different times”; People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="70+Cal.2d+143"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">70 Cal.2d 143</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: Roloson (1969) 70 Cal.2d 143, 149 “The nature of an action and the issues involved are to be determined, not from the appellation given the pleading, but from the facts alleged... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="96+Cal.+532"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">96 Cal. 532</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="401+U.S.+371"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">401 U.S. 371</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="91+S.Ct.+780"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">91 S.Ct. 780</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="48+Cal.4th+788"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Boeken v. Philip (2008) 48 Cal.4th 788</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) (Boeken), Justice Moreno observed as follows: “Although there is some controversy in the matter, the dominant rule in this state is that an issue that has been settled b... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.App.4th+818"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bohn v. Smith (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 818</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="169+Cal.App.4th+744"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bolanos v. Superior (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744</a>

  • Robertson v. Saadat: Superior Court (2008) “a written trial court ruling has no precedential value”; Gentis v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.5th+898"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Boling v. Public (2017) 5 Cal.5th 898</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.4th+1038"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Boling v. Public (2006) 41 Cal.4th 1038</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Barnwell (2007) .) And if a court holds an evidentiary hearing, it may make credibility determinations, to which an appellate court would generally defer. (See Haworth, at p. 385; but see Leslie H., [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="98+Cal.App.4th+788"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bonta v. Burke (2001) 98 Cal.App.4th 788</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="155+Cal.App.4th+1366"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Booker v. Rountree (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1366</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Rountree (2007) .) A motion to strike under section 425.16, subdivision (b)(1) is analyzed and resolved by “the court . . . engaging in a two-step process. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="155+Cal.App.4th+1131"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bookout v. Nielsen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1131</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="186+Cal.App.4th+1478"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bookout v. State (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1478</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Dept. of Transportation (2010) (Bookout).) Given the parties’ respective burdens, the standard of review is as articulated in Shaw v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.App.5th+1059"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Boschetti v. Pacific (2018) 32 Cal.App.5th 1059</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Pacific Bay Investments, Inc. (2019) “‘the right of buyout under section 15908.02 is dependent upon a cause of action for judicial dissolution’”; Ontiveros v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="204+Cal.App.4th+1196"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bosetti v. United States Life Insurance Co. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1196</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.App.5th+883"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Boshernitsan v. Bach (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 883</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A settlor who is also a lifetime beneficiary of a revocable inter‑vivos trust is deemed to have the same rights and powers as a full owner of the trust property.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.App.5th+281"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bottini v. City (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 281</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: City of San Diego (2018) (Bottini).) Government regulation may also be so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster and such regulatory takings may also be compensable. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: City of San Diego (2018) (Bottini).) Government regulation may also be so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation or ouster and such regulatory takings may also be compensable. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="229+Cal.App.4th+468"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bounds v. Superior (2013) 229 Cal.App.4th 468</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: Superior Court (2014) , 479–480 (Bounds) same conclusion where allegations showed that elderly petitioner executed escrow instructions authorizing the sale of real property owned by her trust... [context]
  • Ring v. Harmon: S. 274, 278; see also Bounds v. Superior Court (2014) (Bounds) “Case law recognizes that property rights are a complex ‘bundle of rights’”.) Some of the sticks in the bundle for Atiyeh’s house passed... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="163+Cal.App.4th+916"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bowen v. Ryan (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 916</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="66+Cal.App.5th+119"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bowen v. Ryan (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 119</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: City of West Covina (2021) .) More specifically, “habit” constitutes a person’s regular or consistent response to a repeated situation, while “custom” means the routine practice or behavior on the par... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.2d+574"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">44 Cal.2d 574</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal.2d 574, 589 intervention should be permitted only where the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of § 387.) Here, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="172+Cal.App.4th+1058"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bradley v. Gilbert (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1058</a>

  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: Gilbert (2009) .) De novo review is equally applicable to the legal question of whether a statute of limitations applies. (Gilkyson v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.5th+311"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brady v. Carman (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 311</a>

  • Logan v. Country Oaks Partners: Bartlett Care Center, 4 The arbitration agreement states: “The parties to this Arbitration Agreement acknowledge and agree that the Admission Agreement... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="154+Cal.App.4th+547"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brenelli Amedeo, S.P.A. v. Bakara Furniture, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: 24 did not “wrongfully deprive George of property.” Herren relatedly contends her presentation of the agreement to Susannah “precluded a finding of an intent to defraud... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.App.5th+589"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brenner v. Universal (2016) 12 Cal.App.5th 589</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc. (2017) “As a general rule, a third party does not have standing to bring a claim asserting a violation of someone else’s rights.”.) After all, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.App.4th+878"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brentwood v. Campbell (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 878</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.App.5th+801"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Breslin v. Breslin (2020) 62 Cal.App.5th 801</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Breslin (2021) ; Estate of Green (1956) 145 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="219+Cal.App.4th+288"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bridgeman v. Allen (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 288</a>

  • Packard v. Packard: Allen (2013) [context]
  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Allen (2013) , fn. 1.) We review the trial court’s decision to take judicial notice for abuse of discretion. (In re Social Services Payment Cases (2008) 166 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="166+Cal.App.4th+1249"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bridgeman v. Allen (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1249</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: App.4th 288, 293, fn. 1.) We review the trial court’s decision to take judicial notice for abuse of discretion. (In re Social Services Payment Cases (2008) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.4th+1106"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Briggs v. Eden (1997) 19 Cal.4th 1106</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (1999) .) Further, “there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body.” (Ludwig v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.2d+885"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">33 Cal.2d 885</a>

  • Barefoot v. Jennings: Hall (1949) 33 Cal.2d 885 (Brock).) Our review concerns whether plaintiff has standing to assert the invalidity of the Trust amendments that left her without an interest in her mother’s trust estate. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="76+Cal.App.5th+1003"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brown v. El Dorado County (2021) 76 Cal.App.5th 1003</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: The partitioning court’s orders, however, were not ambiguous. Because plaintiff argued against the affirmative defense of quasi-judicial immunity on its merits and did not show how the procedural defe... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="192+Cal.App.4th+265"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brown v. Grimes (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 265</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: Grimes (2011) noting a trial court’s choice-of-law ruling is reviewed de novo.) B. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="157+Cal.App.4th+795"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brown v. Labow (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 795</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Labow (2007) .) The Probate Code governs trust revocation and modification. [context]
  • Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anon v. Narcotics Anon World Svcs: Labow (2007) .) We construe all parts of the instrument in relation to one another to form a consistent whole. (§ 21121.) This rule manifests our respect for the intelligence and effort of the drafter... [context]
  • Donkin v. Donkin: Labow (2007) 7 As a general rule, orders “compelling the trustee to submit an account or report acts as trustee” are not appealable. (§ 1304, subd. (a)(1).) There is an exception to this rule, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="230+Cal.App.4th+336"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Brown, supra, Âś 7:47, citing Larson v. UHS of Rancho Springs, Inc. (2013) 230 Cal.App.4th 336</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="79+Cal.App.5th+801"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bruno v. Hopkins (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 801</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: Governing Law Probate proceedings are statutory; the language of the applicable statute defines the court’s powers and responsibilities. (See Bruno v. Hopkins (2022) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="80+Cal.+397"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">80 Cal. 397</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="114+F.3d+923"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">114 F.3d 923</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.3d+815"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buckaloo v. Johnson (1974) 14 Cal.3d 815</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Johnson (1975) 14 Cal.3d 815, 821, disapproved in part on other grounds in Della Penna v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.4th+376"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buckaloo v. Johnson (1994) 11 Cal.4th 376</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="244+Cal.App.4th+175"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bucur v. Ahmad (2014) 244 Cal.App.4th 175</a>

  • Packard v. Packard: Ahmad (2016) –185.) We accept as true all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Ibid.; Estate of Dayan, at p. 40.) “ ‘Moreover... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.3d+195"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200.) “In legal malpractice claims, the absence of causation may be decided on summary judgment ‘only if, under undisputed facts, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.5th+1191"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buenaventura v. United (2016) 3 Cal.5th 1191</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) , fn. 6 same claim as in Eiskamp; although ordinance was not technically under attack at time of stipulated judgment, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) , fn. 6 same claim as in Eiskamp; although ordinance was not technically under attack at time of stipulated judgment, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.3d+658"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bureau v. Superior (1988) 50 Cal.3d 658</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 658, 664 (CSAA) “a stipulated judgment may properly be given collateral estoppel effect, at least when the parties manifest an intent to be collaterally bound by its te... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.2d+608"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">41 Cal.2d 608</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: City and County of San Francisco (1953) 41 Cal.2d 608, 614 “although it would ordinarily be better practice to hold a hearing and take testimony, the predecessor to section 3500 does not require it”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.2d+441"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Burke v. Hibernia Bank 60 Cal.2d 441</a>

  • In re Brace: State Bd. of Equal. (1963) 60 Cal.2d 441, 447, fn. omitted), such as the right to possess, lease, encumber, or alienate the property. Shared management and control is a defining feature of our communi... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="144+Cal.App.4th+387"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Burkle v. Burkle (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 387</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="188+Cal.App.4th+1295"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Burkle v. Burkle (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1295</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="30+Cal.2d+861"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">30 Cal.2d 861</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Irigoyen (1947) 30 Cal.2d 861, 866.) As the cases Jacqueline cites illustrate, the principle has been applied to permit minors to disaffirm a minor’s execution of a deed of trust (Lee v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="222+Cal.App.4th+1028"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Busse v. United (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1028</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Corp. (2014) “the Legislature is ‘presumed to know about existing case law when it enacts or amends a statute’ ”.) 30 did not lack capacity to enter into the agreement.” (Fam. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.5th+369"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bustos v. Wells (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 369</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: A. (2019) “Civil Code section 2924.12, subdivision (h) merely authorizes a trial court to award attorney fees and costs to a prevailing borrower. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="440+U.S.+48"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">440 U.S. 48</a>

  • In re Brace: United States (1979) .) The bankruptcy trustee in this case sought a declaration that the Redlands and San Bernardino properties are community property under Family Code section 760. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.App.4th+1054"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Byrne v. Laura (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 1054</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Laura (1997) , allegations that the plaintiff retired from her job, moved in with a man, and performed spousal duties for him for five years based on his oral promises to devise property to her create... [context]

C

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="177+Cal.App.4th+471"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cabral v. Martins (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 471</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) The statutory provision is mandatory. (Cabral v. Martins (2009) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="197+Cal.App.4th+1077"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cabrera v. Alam (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1077</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Alam (2011) .) One category protects “any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="111+Cal.App.4th+683"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cabrini Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Haghverdian (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 683</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: We need not consider objections not made in the trial court. (Cabrini Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Haghverdian (2003) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.3d+335"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cal Land Management, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 24 Cal.3d 335</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 335 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="223+Cal.App.4th+622"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cal.3d 390, 400-401; see Eddie E. v. Superior Court (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 622</a>

  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Superior Court (2013) [context]
  • O.C. v. Super. Ct.: Superior Court (2013) (Eddie E.) petition for writ relief is the remedy for a superior court’s denial of a minor immigrant’s request for SIJ findings. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.5th+1099"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cal.4th 1172, 1201; accord, F. P. v. Monier (2016) 3 Cal.5th 1099</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Monier (2017) .) “In the absence of structural error, the Watson standard for demonstrating prejudice controls.” (People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="98+Cal.App.4th+1108"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cal.4th at p. 1108; see Avikian v. WTC Financial Corp. (2001) 98 Cal.App.4th 1108</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: WTC Financial Corp. (2002) (Avikian) plaintiffs’ “core claim” of mismanagement that caused the corporation’s demise “amounted to a claim of injury to the corporation itself”; Nelson, supra, 72 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="48+Cal.App.4th+1076"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cal.App.4th 379, 383, citation omitted; see Conservatorship of O’Connor (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1076</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: App.4th 672, 680; see American Contractors, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 661; Abelleira, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 288; Conservatorship of O’Connor (1996) -1088.) For example, in Serrano v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="170+Cal.App.4th+648"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cal.App.4th 559, 577; Sixells, LLC v. Cannery Business Park (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 648</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Cannery Business Park (2008) , fn. 3.) After the probate court granted William’s motion, Gary filed a timely writ petition, acknowledging that “an order to expunge a lis pendens is only properly revie... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.4th+261"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose (2000) 26 Cal.4th 261</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="438+U.S.+645"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">California v. U.S. 438 U.S. 645</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: S. (1978) -650.) The Reclamation Act and supplemental legislation generally limited to 160 acres the amount of private land in single ownership eligible to receive water from a reclamation project. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: S. (1978) -650.) The Reclamation Act and supplemental legislation generally limited to 160 acres the amount of private land in single ownership eligible to receive water from a reclamation project. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.4th+412"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Call v. Pacifi (2000) 25 Cal.4th 412</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) .) “ ‘If the complaint fails to plead, or if the defendant negates, any essential element of a particular cause of action, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.App.4th+784"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Anderson (1997) , fn. 3 (Campos); SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="203+Cal.App.4th+549"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Campos v. Anderson (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 549</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Five Bridges Foundation (2012) , fn. 18 “Appellant cannot salvage a forfeited argument by belatedly addressing the argument in its reply brief”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.5th+1138"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Candelore v. Tinder (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 1138</a>

  • Robertson v. Saadat: Tinder, Inc. (2018) .) We are not bound by the trial court’s reasoning and may affirm the judgment if correct on any theory. (Young v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="48+Cal.4th+68"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cann v. Foster (2008) 48 Cal.4th 68</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: 6 bond proceedings occur in connection with criminal prosecutions, they are independent from and collateral to the prosecutions and are civil in nature.”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.5th+474"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="233+Cal.App.4th+1292"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Care v. Mortensen (2013) 233 Cal.App.4th 1292</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Mortensen (2015) & fn. 2.) 5 Authority in Kings County seeking to enjoin the Authority from seeking the records. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Mortensen (2015) & fn. 2.) 5 Authority in Kings County seeking to enjoin the Authority from seeking the records. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="243+Cal.App.4th+1029"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Caregivers v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 243 Cal.App.4th 1029</a>

  • People v. Braum: App.4th 1316 (420 Caregivers) and Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles (2016) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="99+Cal.App.4th+1094"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2001) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.5th+844"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carmack v. Reynolds (2016) 2 Cal.5th 844</a>

  • Marriage of Wendt and Pullen: Reynolds (2017) .) California generally follows the common law of trusts, except as modified by statute. (Estate of Giraldin (2012) .) The law regarding spendthrift trusts is stated as follows: “Under... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="117+Cal.App.4th+144"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carmack v. Reynolds (2003) 117 Cal.App.4th 144</a>

  • Marriage of Wendt and Pullen: Brown (2004) (Ventura), to find section 2030 fees could be awarded only upon a finding of bad faith by the trustee. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.3d+318"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carman v. Alvord (1981) 31 Cal.3d 318</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Alvord (1982) 31 Cal.3d 318, 326.) “It can include all financial obligations arising from contract,” “ ‘obligations which are yet to become due as well as those which are already matured’ ” (id. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="184+Cal.App.4th+196"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carolina Casualty Ins. Co. v. L.M. Ross Law Group, LLP (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 196</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="195+Cal.App.4th+373"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carpenter & Zuckerman, LLP v. Cohen (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 373</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Cohen (2011) .) “ ‘We look at the evidence in support of the trial court’s finding, resolve all conflicts in favor of the respondent and indulge in all legitimate... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="218+Cal.+471"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">218 Cal. 471</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="111+Cal.App.4th+1255"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carrancho v. California (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1255</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: California Air Resources Board (2003) -1265 (Carrancho).) 'In reviewing such quasi-legislative decisions, the trial court does not inquire whether, if it had power to act in the first instance... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: California Air Resources Board (2003) -1265 (Carrancho).) 'In reviewing such quasi-legislative decisions, the trial court does not inquire whether, if it had power to act in the first instance... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="59+Cal.2d+97"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">59 Cal.2d 97</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="49+Cal.3d+432"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cause v. Board (1988) 49 Cal.3d 432</a>

  • Amundson v. Catello: App.5th at p. 810), which may properly occur for the first time on appeal (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 438). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.4th+748"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Center v. Belsh (1995) 13 Cal.4th 748</a>

  • Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst: BelshĂŠ (1996) .) For a person older than 55 years of age, financial eligibility for Medi-Cal benefits is calculated without including the value of his or her principal residence. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.4th+459"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Center v. California (2007) 44 Cal.4th 459</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) .) In reviewing such matters, the question for this court is “whether the construction offered by the CDCR, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.App.5th+416"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Center v. City (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 416</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="117+Cal.App.4th+1156"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Center v. Superior (2003) 117 Cal.App.4th 1156</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Superior Court (2004) , fn. omitted.) Here, Kenton explained in his petition that he wanted to depose Hilja to demonstrate she “published the defamatory statement either knowing of its falsity... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.3d+52"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Central Coast Regional Com. (1985) 42 Cal.3d 52</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: South Central Coast Regional Com. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 52, 79 “ ‘The award of attorney’s fees under Government Code section 800 is allowed only if the actions of a public entity or official were wholly ar... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="181+Cal.App.4th+1234"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chacon v. Litke (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1234</a>

  • Welch v. Welch: Litke (2010) (Chacon).) The standard of review when construing a contract is de novo, “including where conflicting inferences may be drawn from undisputed extrinsic evidence... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.App.5th+565"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chacon v. Union (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 565</a>

  • Dunlap v. Mayer: Union Pacific Railroad (2018) .) II THE ESTATE HAD STANDING TO REQUEST AN ACCOUNTING Maria contends that the Estate had no standing to petition for an accounting pursuant to section 17200 because the... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="209+Cal.App.4th+1138"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chaker v. Mateo (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1138</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="64+Cal.App.5th+751"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chapter v. Hemrick (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 751</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.3d+586"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chasteen v. State (1984) 40 Cal.3d 586</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: affiliation” with NJ Construction (and by extension Gonzalez) was clearly false. We find that Bradshaw willfully misrepresented his relationship with Bay Construction... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="94+Cal.App.4th+1083"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chavez v. Mendoza (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1083</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Mendoza (2001) .) As a result, the trial court imposed on Richard the burden to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on his malicious prosecution claim. (See Baral v. [context]
  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: Mendoza (2001) discussing tort’s “disfavored” nature.) Malicious prosecution has historically involved personal injury to another. (Ray Wong v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="188+Cal.App.4th+401"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. AMZ Ins. Services, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 401</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Services, Inc. (2010) .) “Under the deferential substantial evidence standard of review, findings of fact are liberally construed to support the judgment … and we consider the evidence in the light mo... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.3d+660"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Choudhry v. Free (1975) 17 Cal.3d 660</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Free (1976) 17 Cal.3d 660, 662-663 (Choudhry).) In any event, the parties do not explain how the manner in which the district was originally formed impacts its status once formed. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Free (1976) 17 Cal.3d 660, 662-663 (Choudhry).) In any event, the parties do not explain how the manner in which the district was originally formed impacts its status once formed. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="202+Cal.App.4th+1407"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407</a>

  • Conservatorship of Farrant: Kimball (2012) “Determining the need for an accounting is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion”; Esslinger v. Cummins (2006) 144 Cal. [context]
  • Dunlap v. Mayer: The court took these actions sua sponte, as part of its duties to supervise administration of the trust, and to inquire into the prudence of the trustee’s actions. (Ibid.) In another case... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="144+Cal.App.4th+517"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Christie v. Kimball (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 517</a>

  • Conservatorship of Farrant: App.4th 1407, 1413 “Determining the need for an accounting is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion”; Esslinger v. Cummins (2006) .) “‘Discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, [context]
  • Donkin v. Donkin: Cummins (2006) .) The remainder of the trial court’s decision addressing appellants’ petition for instructions likewise “determines questions of construction of a trust instrument” and is also appeala... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="134+Cal.App.4th+118"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Christoff v. Union (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2005) “an appellant’s failure to discuss an issue in its opening brief forfeits the issue on appeal”.) “‘“To withhold a point until the closing brief would deprive the resp... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="86+Cal.App.5th+929"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chui v. Chui (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 929</a>

  • Conservatorship of You Wei Dong: The Probate Code authorizes the appointment of a guardian ad litem but contains no substantive or procedural provisions that govern the removal of a guardian ad litem. Consequently,

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="75+Cal.App.5th+873"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chui v. Chui (2021) 75 Cal.App.5th 873</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Chui (2022) (Chui), petns. for cert. pending, petns. filed Sept. 12, 2022, 22-251, 22-253 & Sept. 13, 2022, 22-247.) 2 the removal petitions and, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.5th+246"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Churchman v. Bay (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 246</a>

  • Robertson v. Saadat: Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist. (2019) it is plaintiff’s burden to show how amendment can cure defects in complaint.) Plaintiff cites Matter of Zhu (N. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="218+Cal.App.4th+602"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: An appellate court must defer to the trial court’s factual findings, reviewing them only for substantial‑evidence support and never reweighing the evidence, drawing its own factual inferences,

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="63+Cal.App.5th+117"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Ramirez (2020) 63 Cal.App.5th 117</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Ramirez (2021) , italics added.) Accordingly, numerous cases have held that a malicious prosecution claim may not be maintained where the prior-suit defendant prevailed on one or more (but not all) cl... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="64+Cal.App.5th+180"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">City of Calexico v. Bergeson (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 180</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: enter the alternative decree, we do not have jurisdiction to consider any appeal from the September 27, 2017 order and must dismiss the appeal from that order. (See City of Calexico v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="204+Cal.App.4th+1375"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">City of Long Beach v. Stevedoring Services of America (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1375</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Superior Court (2012) trial court can proceed on matters not stayed by appeal.) As to such postappeal motions, the action or proceeding continues to be “pending” in the trial court even while the appe... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="180+Cal.App.4th+980"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">City of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 980</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.App.5th+418"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">City v. Brentwood v. Department (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 418</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Department of Finance (2020) .) Neither of those situations are at issue in a legal malpractice cause of action, the elements of which are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (See Coscia v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.4th+435"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clara v. Perry (1997) 18 Cal.4th 435</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Perry (1998) .) The following hypothetical scenario illustrates how section 859 operates under the plain language of the statute. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.2d+140"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">62 Cal.2d 140</a>

  • Welch v. Welch: Superior Court (1964) 62 Cal.2d 140, 144 “The death destroys the cause of action for the dissolution of the marriage; it does not liquidate the property rights which crystallized in the interlocutory... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="209+Cal.App.4th+1315"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cleveland v. Johnson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1315</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Johnson (2012) (Cleveland).)6 Although appellants cite BMW, State Farm, and Simon for these general propositions, they make no effort to apply these propositions to a situation involving an alter ego... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="219+Cal.App.4th+540"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clintock v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 540</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: West (2013) ; County of Los Angeles v. [context]
  • Holt v. Brock: West (2013) -552 (McClintock) guardian ad litem; Fisher v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="91+Cal.App.4th+1303"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Clintock v. West (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1303</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Superior Court (2001) (County of Los Angeles); Serway, supra, 75 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="76+Cal.App.4th+895"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cloud v. Casey (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 895</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Casey (1999) employer’s use of a false explanation to hide gender- based termination supported punitive damages award; Stephens v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.App.4th+995"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cloud v. Northrop (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) ; see also Code Civ. [context]
  • Amundson v. Catello: But even if she had, we have not been presented with any facts indicating she did so to deliberately try to game the system, a showing required to meet the doctrine’s third element. (Jackson... [context]
  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) .) Thus, it has been said on many occasions “a real party in interest ordinarily is defined as the person possessing the right sued upon by reason of the substantive law. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) .) There are some differences between a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a demurrer. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) .) There are some differences between a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a demurrer. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.2d+385"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">12 Cal.2d 385</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Dist. (1938) 12 Cal.2d 385, 388 (Clough) addressing Wright-Bridgford Act § 29, regarding property being held in trust: The property is by this language impressed with the public use; Allen v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Dist. (1938) 12 Cal.2d 385, 388 (Clough) addressing Wright-Bridgford Act § 29, regarding property being held in trust: The property is by this language impressed with the public use; Allen v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.4th+157"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Club v. Superior (2012) 57 Cal.4th 157</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="100+Cal.App.4th+129"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coalition v. Board (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 129</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Board of Supervisors (2002) .) A statute “cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language.” (Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.4th+155"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coalition v. City (2010) 52 Cal.4th 155</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: City of Manhattan Beach (2011) (Save the Plastic Bag). In our view, Limon inaccurately characterizes Save the Plastic Bag. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="171+Cal.App.4th+495"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coalition v. Fish (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 495</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9.) “To the extent the record is incomplete, we construe it against them.” (Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009) .) Thus... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.App.4th+481"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cochran v. Rubens (1995) 42 Cal.App.4th 481</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: Rubens (1996) .) Here, the ruling upholding the trust’s validity turned on the trial court’s determination of whether, at the time she executed her trust... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="103+Cal.App.4th+18"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Codoni v. Codoni (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 18</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="239+Cal.App.4th+237"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coldren v. Hart (2014) 239 Cal.App.4th 237</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Hart, King & Coldren, Inc. (2015) -247 former shareholder in a law firm had no standing to disqualify defendant firm’s counsel where claims were direct... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="63+Cal.+86"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">63 Cal. 86</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Superior Court of City & County of San Francisco (1883) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.App.5th+879"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Collins v. Thurmond (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 879</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Thurmond (2019) -894 noting that on demurrer, the plaintiff’s allegations were bolstered by general factual allegations incorporated by reference. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="206+Cal.App.4th+751"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="139+Cal.App.4th+328"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Colton v. Singletary (2005) 139 Cal.App.4th 328</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2006) -340 (Mann); ComputerXpress, supra, at pp. 1019-1020.) The entitlement to fees and costs where the defendant prevails in part, however, is not absolute. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="213+Cal.App.4th+1531"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Committee v. California (2012) 213 Cal.App.4th 1531</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: California Apprenticeship Council (2013) .) Arguably, Gann might have appropriately challenged the CDCR’s determination in an administrative mandamus proceeding. Notwithstanding... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="228+Cal.App.4th+427"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Committee v. County (2013) 228 Cal.App.4th 427</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: County of San Luis Obispo (2014) .) Bewley seeks to draw a distinction between a motion to quash based on lack of minimum contacts with the forum and a motion to quash based on lack of proper service. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="84+Cal.App.4th+499"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Communications, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 499</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.4th+733"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Communities, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 34 Cal.4th 733</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.4th+434"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1995) 14 Cal.4th 434</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) , fn. 3.) We also deny the request because the document is not relevant. (See People ex rel. [context]
  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) (Vons), abrogated on other grounds by Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court (2017) ___ U. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="438+U.S.+104"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">438 U.S. 104</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="501+U.S.+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Connecticut v. Doehr (1991) 501 U.S. 1</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: May 2020) Creditors’ Rights and Remedies, § 77.) It also ensures that the attachment request may be fairly and accurately determined in summary proceedings before trial. (Connecticut v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.4th+1169"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Connerly v. State (2004) 37 Cal.4th 1169</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: State Personnel Bd. (2006) .) Christine contends that the “purported settlement” the court enforced “ ‘was different from the terms of the parties’ stipulated settlement agreement. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="422+U.S.+563"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">422 U.S. 563</a>

  • Conservatorship of K.P.: Donaldson (1975) .) 12 The Davis decision was essentially followed in Conservatorship of Baber (1984) 153 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.4th+971"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservation v. El (2004) 36 Cal.4th 971</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.5th+989"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship (2019) 9 Cal.5th 989</a>

  • In re E.L.: B. (2020) [context]
  • In re Bradshaw: B. (2020) .) In this matter, the Hearing Department found culpability on three counts while dismissing two others and recommended disbarment. [context]
  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: B. (2020) .) “In general, when presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence associated with a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence, [context]
  • Li v. Super. Ct.: B. (2020) .) In Conservatorship of O. [context]
  • Conservatorship of O.B.: B. (2020) , the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment rendered in our prior opinion filed on February 26, 2019. [context]
  • Gomez v. Smith: B. (2020) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+701"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship o f David L. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 701</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Demand for court or jury trial shall be made within five days following the hearing on the conservatorship 5 As we do not decide this appeal on forfeiture grounds... [context]
  • Conservatorship of K.P.: App.5th 254, 257, fn. 2; see Conservatorship of David L. (2008) .) We agree and elect to decide this otherwise moot appeal. 5 Conservatorship of K. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="66+Cal.App.5th+384"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of A.B. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 384</a>

  • Conservatorship of R.J.: A trial court must correctly address and rectify any errors that arise during a conservatorship accounting proceeding, rather than relying on a generic fee schedule without individualized findings.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="232+Cal.App.4th+543"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Alexis E. (2013) 232 Cal.App.4th 543</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="149+Cal.App.4th+342"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Amanda (2006) 149 Cal.App.4th 342</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Khoie and Donati, opined that a limited conservatorship is inappropriate. But “an appellate court . . . will sustain the trial court’s factual findings if there is the requisite substantial evidence t... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.App.5th+871"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of B.C. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 871</a>

  • Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst: Two days later, by a declaration of trust dated March 16, 2004, Joseph created a revocable inter vivos trust (the trust) and designated the trust as the pay-on-death 2 We refer to Joseph... [context]
  • Estate of Eimers: Thus, the will’s reference to the Family Trust (the creating instrument) is not the same as a specific reference to the power of appointment and does not suffice. [context]
  • Tubbs v. Berkowitz: The Court Did Not Err “‘“A power of appointment is a power conferred by the owner of property (the ‘donor’) upon another person (the ‘donee’) to designate the persons (‘appointees’) who will receive t... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.App.5th+1028"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of B.C. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1028</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="175+Cal.App.4th+1474"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Becerra (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1474</a>

  • Dunlap v. Mayer: App.5th 561, 567.) The court must exercise its discretion within the “ ‘ “limitations of legal principles governing the subject of its action.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 568. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.4th+529"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Ben (2005) 40 Cal.4th 529</a>

  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: 7 disorder, are dangerous or gravely disabled. (§ 5150 et seq.) The Act authorizes the superior court to appoint a conservator of the person for one who is determined to be gravely disabled (§ 5350 et... [context]
  • Conservatorship of K.P.: from a conservator’s appointment or reappointment provide available and adequate remedies for aggrieved conservatees. (Gandolfo, at pp. 898–900; see Michelle K. v. Superior Court (2013) ... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.4th+947"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Ben C. (2004) 37 Cal.4th 947</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: To be sure, a child’s age may be relevant to the best interest determination. (See In re 31 Guardianship of SAUL H. Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.App.5th+426"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Bower (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) (569 ECB).) The trial court here did just that. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.App.5th+190"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Bryan (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 190</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: R.’s failure to object below. (See Conservatorship of Bryan S. (2019) , disapproved on other grounds in Public Guardian of Contra Costa County v. [context]
  • Conservatorship of C.O.: O.’s failure to raise the claims in the trial court. (See Conservatorship of Bryan S. (2019) (Bryan S.).)5 C. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="234+Cal.App.4th+937"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Carol A. (2014) 234 Cal.App.4th 937</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Martinez Steel Corp. (2015) appellate court will presume that trial court “considered all the pertinent matters presented to it and ruled in favor of the prevailing party”. . 47 F. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="200+Cal.App.4th+1198"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Cornelius (2012) 200 Cal.App.4th 1198</a>

  • Conservatorship of A.B.: The public guardian is entitled to “compensation for expenses that the conservator believed were necessary to benefit the conservatee if that belief was objectively reasonable. [context]
  • Conservatorship of Brokken: 2 Respondents maintained the equitable principles set forth in Conservatorship of Cornelius (2011) (Cornelius), support an award of attorney fees under the unique circumstances of this case. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.App.5th+794"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of D.P. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 794</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="180+Cal.App.4th+1306"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Deidre (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1306</a>

  • Conservatorship of K.P.: A “reestablishment hearing is conducted according to the same rules that govern the initial establishment of a conservatorship. Citations. The state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt t... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.3d+244"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Early (1982) 35 Cal.3d 244</a>

  • Conservatorship of K.P.: vocational, and social condition, and information obtained from the person’s family members, close friends, social worker, or principal therapist.” (§ 5354, subd. (a).) After this investigation... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="224+Cal.App.4th+340"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of G.H. (2013) 224 Cal.App.4th 340</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Were a court permitted to do these things, the effect would be to require the child to submit evidence beyond a declaration even when the declaration establishes the facts necessary to support SIJ pre... [context]
  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Superior Court (2014) (Leslie H.).) The cases do not discuss whether an appeal or a writ petition is the proper vehicle to obtain appellate review of an order denying a petition for SIJ findings. [context]
  • O.C. v. Super. Ct.: Superior Court (2014) (Leslie H.).) Title 8 United States Code section 1101(a)(27)(J) “is a form of immigration relief that affords undocumented children a pathway to lawful permanent residency... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="169+Cal.App.4th+157"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of George (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 157</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: P.).) Nevertheless, a reviewing court has the discretion to decide an otherwise moot case if “ ‘it raises important issues that are capable of repetition but likely to evade review.’ ” (John L., [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="240+Cal.App.4th+1241"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Heather (2014) 240 Cal.App.4th 1241</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: App.4th 378, 383– 385 (Heather W.); Conservatorship of Kevin A. (2015) –1251 (Kevin A.).) 7 Although the courts are split as to whether the LPS 7 These cases also recognize that a trial court may acce... [context]
  • People v. Washington: Absent such a waiver, the court must accord the conservatee a jury trial unless the court finds the conservatee lacks the capacity to make such a decision.”... [context]
  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: Tran (2015) trial court’s acceptance of invalid jury trial waiver in commitment proceeding for defendant who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity “is not susceptible to ordinary harmless error ana... [context]
  • Conservatorship of C.O.: App.4th 378, 381 (Heather W.); Conservatorship of Kevin A. (2015) (Kevin A.).) Notably, in Heather W., the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 6, held, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="163+Cal.App.4th+1359"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Irina V. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1359</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.App.4th+1334"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Irvine (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1334</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: App.4th 1194, 1209 where trust “expressly deprived the decedent of the power to revoke, modify or amend,” documents purporting to amend the trust were “invalid”... [context]
  • Haggerty v. Thornton: 2 Again, we need not and do not consider the situation in King, where the trust instrument did distinguish between methods for revocation and modification... [context]
  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: App.3d at pp. 402–405.) Cundall also cites Conservatorship of Irvine (1995) , which was decided under current law and contains language suggesting that section 15401 incorporated existing prior case l... [context]
  • Barefoot v. Jennings: App.4th 400, 407- 409 individual petitioned under § 17200 claiming two amendments to a trust that disinherited her were invalid on the ground the settlor was incompetent; [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="245+Cal.App.4th+53"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of J.P. (2014) 245 Cal.App.4th 53</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: S. (2016) ), and we decide the question of mootness on a case-by-case basis (In re Joshua C. (1994) 24 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.App.5th+704"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of J.W. (2020) 62 Cal.App.5th 704</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: A. (2021) .) One element of a quiet title claim “is ‘the adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought.’ Citation.” (West v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="248+Cal.App.4th+453"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Jesse (2014) 248 Cal.App.4th 453</a>

  • Conservatorship of K.P.: App.5th at p. 1168; see Conservatorship of Jesse G. (2016) –461.) However, K. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="72+Cal.App.5th+1009"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Joanne (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1009</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: Eric B. (2022) .) As for the issue of waiver, several appellate courts postdating Joseph W. have reaffirmed the principle that a person’s waiver of the statutory right to a jury trial in LPS civil com... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="71+Cal.App.5th+894"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Joanne (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 894</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: O. (2021) – 915 (C. [context]
  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: O. (2021) -919 trial court’s failure to personally advise proposed conservatee of right to a jury trial was statutory error, but error was harmless; [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="245+Cal.App.4th+378"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Joanne (2014) 245 Cal.App.4th 378</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: O.); Conservatorship of Heather W. (2016) – 385 (Heather W.); Conservatorship of Kevin A. (2015) 240 Cal. [context]
  • People v. Washington: 11 attorney”.) The court concluded, “We hold that this language has the same meaning as the parallel language in the MDO statute: The trial court must advise the NGI defendant personally of his or her... [context]
  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: Jury Trial Waivers Under the LPS Act “LPS commitment proceedings require the court to obtain a personal waiver of the right to a jury trial from the proposed conservatee. [context]
  • Conservatorship of C.O.: 6 3. Case Law A number of courts, including this one, have concluded that in LPS proceedings a conservatee’s counsel may waive the conservatee’s right to jury trial. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.App.4th+373"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Joel E. (1996) 54 Cal.App.4th 373</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: California Coastal Com. (1997) [context]
  • People v. Braum: App.4th 940, 946 . . .), but with deference to underlying factual findings, which we review for substantial evidence, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the ruling (Ojavan Investors, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="48+Cal.4th+131"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of John (2008) 48 Cal.4th 131</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Jennings (2020) § 17200 standing.) In the specific context of section 1820, “the proposed conservatee, spouse, domestic partner, relative, or other ‘interested’ agency, person... [context]
  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: 7 disorder, are dangerous or gravely disabled. (§ 5150 et seq.) The Act authorizes the superior court to appoint a conservator of the person for one who is determined to be gravely disabled (§ 5350 et... [context]
  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Mootness Pursuant to section 5361, the conservatorship order at issue automatically expired in May 2020. (See Conservatorship of John L. (2010) (John L.).) C. [context]
  • Conservatorship of K.P.: This problem frequently arises because a conservatorship’s duration is short, compared to the appellate process. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of John L. (2010) , fn. 2 (John L.). [context]
  • Conservatorship of A.E.: This is a permanent appointment.” Discussion Section 1825, subdivision (a) requires that the proposed conservatee “be produced” at the hearing on the guardianship petition unless certain exceptions ar... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.App.5th+159"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of John L. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 159</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Code, § 5302, subd. (a); see Estate of O’Connor (2017) ; Estate of Petersen (1994) 28 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.App.5th+963"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Jose (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 963</a>

  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: This delay strays far from the statutory requirement in section 5350, subdivision (d)(2), that a “court or jury trial shall commence within 10 days of the date of the demand... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="199+Cal.App.4th+953"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Joseph (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 953</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: Citing Conservatorship of Joseph W. (2011) (Joseph W.), the public conservator argues that K. [context]
  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Code, § 1828, subd. (b)(1).) A hearing to reestablish a conservatorship is largely conducted according to the same rules that govern the initial establishment of a conservatorship. [context]
  • Conservatorship of K.P.: Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230; Conservatorship of Joseph W. (2011) .) A. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.App.5th+648"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of K.B. (2017) 24 Cal.App.5th 648</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: A. (2018) jurisdiction may be established based on any one of 23 Guardianship of SAUL H. Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. the listed criteria. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="193+Cal.App.4th+1301"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of K.P. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1301</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.App.5th+742"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Kayle (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 742</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="184+Cal.App.4th+313"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Lois L. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 313</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.App.5th+76"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of M.B. (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 76</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Superior Court (2019) , Saul describes what he is advocating for as a “substantial evidence” standard. (See id. at p. 83 paraphrasing § 155, subd. [context]
  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Superior Court (2019) (O. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="222+Cal.App.4th+456"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of M.R. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 456</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: CBS Interactive, Inc. (2013) –466 (Boorstein) standing for purposes of Civil Code, § 1789.83 et seq. and Business and Professions Code, § 17200 et seq.. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="72+Cal.App.5th+753"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Manton (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 753</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="218+Cal.App.4th+514"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Maria (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 514</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: We therefore conclude the Watson standard applies. Under this standard, “the appellant bears the burden to make an ‘affirmative showing’ the trial court committed error that resulted in a miscarriage... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="140+Cal.App.4th+515"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Martha P. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 515</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.App.5th+905"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Megan H. (2020) 62 Cal.App.5th 905</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="207+Cal.App.4th+892"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Melissa G. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 892</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="244+Cal.App.4th+982"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Naomi B. (2014) 244 Cal.App.4th 982</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: . 36 Big Sur, Inc. (2016) (Orcilla) borrowers’ concession that “ ‘the Bank Defendants have no Adverse claims to title’ . . . dooms their quiet title claim against those Defendants”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="243+Cal.App.4th+1220"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Nicholas S. (2014) 243 Cal.App.4th 1220</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.App.5th+686"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of O.B. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 686</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Southam (2017) failure to provide supporting legal analysis or legal authority forfeits issue on appeal.) III. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.App.5th+1043"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of O.B. (2016) 12 Cal.App.5th 1043</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.5th+234"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 11 Cal.5th 234</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: R. (2021) .) Accordingly, courts have held that a trial court may not terminate parental rights unless the state has first made efforts to assist a parent suffering from poverty. (See, e.g., [context]
  • In re Samuel A.: R. (2021) order terminating parental rights is “widely recognized as ranking ‘among the most severe forms of state action’”; see generally M. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.App.5th+626"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of O.B. (2018) 32 Cal.App.5th 626</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.App.5th+136"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of O.K. (2020) 61 Cal.App.5th 136</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP (2021) .) As we have concluded, Carol made a prima facie showing that some, but not all, of the claims asserted against the Maleti Respondents terminated in their favor on th... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.App.5th+1163"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of P.D. (2017) 21 Cal.App.5th 1163</a>

  • Conservatorship of K.P.: D. (2018) .) Our goal in construing the LPS Act is to effectuate the Legislature’s intent. (John L., at p. 143.) We consider individual statutes in the context of the entire Act so that each part may... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="221+Cal.App.4th+49"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Pamela J. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) (conc. & dis. opn. of Thompson, J.); People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="190+Cal.App.4th+1163"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Patricia E. (2011) 190 Cal.App.4th 1163</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.App.5th+487"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Presha (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 487</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: App.5th at p. 334.) Fiduciary Duty to Account Generally It is undisputed that as conservator, Foster had a fiduciary duty to Hudson that required Foster to account for transactions. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.App.4th+1310"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Presha (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1310</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: App.5th 487, 498; Conservatorship of Lefkowitz (1996) .) The conservator must account to the court for the property of the conservatee with information about receipts, disbursements, transactions, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="155+Cal.App.4th+736"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Ramirez (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736</a>

  • Guardianship of A.H.: Proc., §§ 128, subd. (a)(4), 581, subd. (m).) But “dismissal is always a drastic remedy to be employed only in the rarest of circumstances.” (Stephen Slesinger... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.App.5th+519"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Ribal (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 519</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: This is the most she would owe. Âś … Here, what the trial court did, was 28. essentially enter a judgment for $15, because it gave the estate the property... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.3d+219"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Roulet (1978) 23 Cal.3d 219</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: He relies on, inter alia, Conservatorship of Roulet (1979) 23 Cal.3d 219, in which the California Supreme Court held under the due process clause of the California Constitution that the state must pro... [context]
  • Conservatorship of K.P.: vocational, and social condition, and information obtained from the person’s family members, close friends, social worker, or principal therapist.” (§ 5354, subd. (a).) After this investigation... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.App.5th+1108"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Sheila K. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1108</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: International Congress for Joint Reconstruction, Inc. (2020) (Center for Healthcare Education.) 12 By statute, “‘undue influence’ means excessive persuasion that causes another person to act... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="136+Cal.App.4th+1392"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Superior Court (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1392</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Elite Show Services, Inc. (2006) continued . 19 plaintiff show that all claims in the underlying action were unsuccessful and that each of them was resolved on the merits. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.4th+1005"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Susan (1993) 8 Cal.4th 1005</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Statutory Provisions The LPS Act, enacted in 1967, “governs the involuntary treatment of the mentally ill in California.” (Conservatorship of Susan T. (1994) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.App.5th+872"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of T.C. (2017) 21 Cal.App.5th 872</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Superior Court (2018) same.) The term “damages” is not defined in the FCRA. “Statutory terms or words will be construed according to their ordinary, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="68+Cal.App.5th+563"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of T.P. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 563</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="91+Cal.App.5th+1007"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Tedesco (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1007</a>

  • Johnson v. Estate of Williams: Similarly, in Conservatorship of Tedesco , 1015, the court held that mere allegations of misconduct are insufficient without proof of actual harm to the estate [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.App.5th+881"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of W.B. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 881</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.4th+519"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Conservatorship of Wendland (2000) 26 Cal.4th 519</a>

  • Gomez v. Smith: App.4th at p. 545.) “The default standard of proof in civil cases is the preponderance of the evidence. Citation. Nevertheless, courts have applied the clear... [context]
  • Conservatorship of Navarrete: Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) .) But we need not address those questions in this case because we conclude the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by ordering forced visitation against Na... [context]
  • Conservatorship of O.B.: J. in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication, to allocate the risk of error between the litigants, and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimat... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="397+U.S.+358"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">397 U.S. 358</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: J. in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication, to allocate the risk of error between the litigants, and to indicate the relative importance attached to the ultimat... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.App.5th+142"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Contreras v. Blue Cross of California (2018) 36 Cal.App.5th 142</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Second, they cite no cases that a probate court loses its sanction and expense award authority under rule 2.30 under any 35 circumstances.16 Third, [context]
  • Guardianship of A.H.: Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) trial court could properly sanction both client and attorney when there was “joint misconduct”.) Harber was not at the trial setting conference at which the trial court... [context]
  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) (United Grand) “ ‘appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record’ ”.) Certainly... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.2d+639"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">17 Cal.2d 639</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="285+F.3d+1146"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cooper Industries, Inc. (9th Cir. 2002) 285 F.3d 1146</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: 19 C. Appellants’ Conduct Was Reprehensible. Although we consider the second guidepost last, the degree of reprehensibility of a defendant’s conduct is the most important of the three. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="119+Cal.App.4th+915"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Corbett v. Hayward (2003) 119 Cal.App.4th 915</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Hayward Dodge, Inc. (2004) -921 courts have interpreted the Consumers Legal Remedies Act provision authorizing an award of attorney fees to a prevailing defendant when plaintiff’s action is “ ‘not in... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.5th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cornelius (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: County of Los Angeles (2020) –13.) He also contends the words “in bad faith” in the phrase “by the use of undue influence in bad faith” apply to the phrase “or through the commission of elder... [context]
  • Conservatorship of Brokken: County of Los Angeles (2020) .) 4 In Cornelius, a daughter petitioned for a temporary and permanent conservatorship of her father. (Cornelius, supra, 200 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.4th+63"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cornette v. Department of Corrections (2000) 26 Cal.4th 63</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: “Immediate Family Members means legal spouse; registered domestic partner, natural parents; adoptive parents, if the adoption occurred and a family relationship existed prior to the inmate’s incarcera... [context]
  • Searles v. Archangel: We may not, under the guise of construction, rewrite the law or give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the terms used’”... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.2d+218"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Corporation of America v. Marks (1937) 10 Cal.2d 218</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A lien creditor may enforce a judgment lien against estate property by filing an equitable action without first filing a probate claim, but the creditor is barred from obtaining any deficiency judgmen...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.4th+1135"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Corporations v. Spee (1998) 20 Cal.4th 1135</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+221"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Corrales v. Corrales (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 221</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.4th+1194"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coscia v. Mc (2000) 25 Cal.4th 1194</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: McKenna & Cuneo (2001) .) A plaintiff must prove all four elements to prevail; failure to prove even one is fatal to recovery. (Namikas v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="225+Cal.App.4th+1574"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coscia v. Mc (2013) 225 Cal.App.4th 1574</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Miller (2014) (Namikas).) “‘In the legal malpractice context, the elements of causation and damage are particularly closely linked.’” (Namikas, supra, 225 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="170+Cal.App.4th+1371"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cotton v. Expo (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1371</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+469"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cotton v. Expo (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 469</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Rehmke (2008) .) Michael and Joseph had an opportunity to challenge that order in their appeal from the alternative decree, but they dismissed the appeal, making that order final. (See Code Civ. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.App.5th+266"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Council v. County (2016) 10 Cal.App.5th 266</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: County of Santa Cruz (2017) , fn. 7 “Issues not raised in the appellant’s opening brief are deemed waived or abandoned”.) Gary devotes five pages to the standing issue in his reply brief... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="22+Cal.App.5th+1067"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">County Line Holdings, LLC v. McClanahan (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1067</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A holder of a judgment lien may enforce the lien by filing an equitable foreclosure action without first filing a probate claim, but the holder has no right to recover a deficiency,

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.App.5th+800"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">County of Alameda (2018) 37 Cal.App.5th 800</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: App.4th 519, 535-536 in light of reversal of court’s order denying parent’s section 388 petition, the court’s subsequent order terminating parental rights must also be vacated... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="176+Cal.App.4th+871"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">County of San Diego (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 871</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: County of Los Angeles (1991) -162 task force report on property taxes was a part of the relevant legislative history; Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. County of San Diego (2009) , fn. 7 same; Evid. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: County of Los Angeles (1991) -162 task force report on property taxes was a part of the relevant legislative history; Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. County of San Diego (2009) , fn. 7 same; Evid. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.5th+1085"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">County v. Eric (2021) 12 Cal.5th 1085</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: Eric B. (2022) .) As for the issue of waiver, several appellate courts postdating Joseph W. have reaffirmed the principle that a person’s waiver of the statutory right to a jury trial in LPS civil com... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="235+Cal.App.4th+914"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">County v. Pinole (2014) 235 Cal.App.4th 914</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Pinole Point Props., LLC (2015) .) Here, despite the breadth of the Authority’s request—seeking all of Waste Connections’s Alameda County-related records from landfills in three counties over more tha... [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Pinole Point Props., LLC (2015) .) Here, despite the breadth of the Authority’s request—seeking all of Waste Connections’s Alameda County-related records from landfills in three counties over more tha... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="153+Cal.+686"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">153 Cal. 686</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Winston (1908) -689.) Several of our more recent decisions involving the clear and convincing standard of proof also have recognized that this standard affects a reviewing court’s assessment of the su... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.4th+771"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Covenant Care, Inc. v. Superior Court (2002) 32 Cal.4th 771</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Superior Court (2004) .) Adam contends his allegations repeating the requirements for relief under section 21622 are sufficient because they inform the trustee of the basis for his claims. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.3d+835"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Coy v. Hearst (1985) 42 Cal.3d 835</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Hearst Corp. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 835, 845-846 discussing appellate review of findings of actual malice in defamation suits.) 17 CONSERVATORSHIP OF O. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.3d+744"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Crail v. Blakely (1972) 8 Cal.3d 744</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.2d+20"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">34 Cal.2d 20</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.2d+261"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">26 Cal.2d 261</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="22+Cal.2d+808"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">22 Cal.2d 808</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.3d+429"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Crane v. State (1987) 47 Cal.3d 429</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1988) 47 Cal.3d 429, 446 habitual disregard of client’s interests such as misrepresenting case statuses.) The fact that lack of honesty can give rise to culpability for a scheme to defraud... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="187+Cal.App.4th+1242"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Critzer v. Enos (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1242</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Enos (2010) .) In ruling on a motion to enforce a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, “the court may interpret the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement”... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="95+Cal.App.4th+1194"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Crook v. Contreras (2001) 95 Cal.App.4th 1194</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Contreras (2002) where trust “expressly deprived the decedent of the power to revoke, modify or amend,” documents purporting to amend the trust were “invalid”; Conservatorship of Irvine (1995) 40 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.4th+666"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Crowley v. Katleman (1993) 8 Cal.4th 666</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Katleman (1994) (Crowley) “ ‘a malicious prosecution suit may be maintained where only one of several claims in the prior action lacked probable cause”.) Under the Bertero rule, therefore... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="146+Cal.App.4th+488"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cruz v. Fagor (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 488</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="193+Cal.App.4th+1287"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cuesta v. Benham (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1287</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Benham (2011) , the court found there was no prevailing party, concluding Mark prevailed on the overall validity of the PMA, while Kim succeeded in invalidating the spousal 27 As amended and corrected... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+U.S.+316"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">17 U.S. 316</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Maryland (1819) -414 interpreting “necessary” in necessary and proper clause to mean “employing any means calculated to produce the end, and not as being confined to those single means, [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Maryland (1819) -414 interpreting “necessary” in necessary and proper clause to mean “employing any means calculated to produce the end, and not as being confined to those single means, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.App.5th+571"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cundall v. Mitchell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 571</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Mitchell-Clyde (2020) , 584.) Thus, “section 15401, subdivision (a)(2) ‘provides a default method of revocation where the trust is silent on revocation or does not explicitly provide the exclusive met... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="203+Cal.+190"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">203 Cal. 190</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Lawson (1928) –194 (Cuneo).) “Where the answer, fairly construed, suggests that the defendant may have a good defense, a motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Lawson (1928) –194 (Cuneo).) “Where the answer, fairly construed, suggests that the defendant may have a good defense, a motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="219+Cal.App.4th+298"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cunningham v. Magidow (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 298</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Magidow (2013) 104 appeal was not moot; respondent cited no authority that to preserve her right to appeal, appellant was required to defy the court's order. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Magidow (2013) 104 appeal was not moot; respondent cited no authority that to preserve her right to appeal, appellant was required to defy the court's order. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="90+Cal.App.4th+637"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Cwynar v. City (2000) 90 Cal.App.4th 637</a>

D

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="104+Cal.App.4th+379"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dabney v. Dabney (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 379</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Dabney (2002) [context]
  • Schrage v. Schrage: Dabney (2002) “no court has inherent authority to decide a matter for which there is no legally recognized cause of action”; Housing Group v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="238+Cal.App.4th+905"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dagher v. Ford (2014) 238 Cal.App.4th 905</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: Ford Motor Co. (2015) .) We independently review whether the statutory criteria have been met on undisputed facts. (Ibid.) “For a lawsuit properly to be allowed to continue... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.App.4th+822"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dalany v. American (1995) 42 Cal.App.4th 822</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="131+Cal.App.4th+52"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Daly v. Yessne (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 52</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="121+Cal.App.4th+1238"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Daly v. Yessne (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1238</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Suprema Meats, Inc. (2004) -1253, 1257-1258 (Jara); see also Sutter v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.2d+525"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">28 Cal.2d 525</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: General Petroleum Corp. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 525, 530 “a stockholder may sue as an individual where he is directly and individually injured although the corporation may also have a cause of action for the... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="95+Cal.App.4th+638"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Danekas v. San (2001) 95 Cal.App.4th 638</a>

  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration Bd. (2001) .) 2. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="182+Cal.App.4th+204"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Daniels v. Robbins (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 204</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="509+U.S.+443"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1994) 509 U.S. 443</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="116+Cal.+325"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">116 Cal. 325</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Co. (1897) .) More significantly, because we review for the existence of substantial evidence in support of the court’s factual findings, plaintiffs’ burden on appeal in this matter is not to establis... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="226+Cal.App.4th+578"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">David v. Hernandez (2013) 226 Cal.App.4th 578</a>

  • Marriage of Wendt and Pullen: Hernandez (2014) legal error is abuse of discretion.) Since an award of fees and costs under section 2030 involves factual issues not yet addressed, we shall reverse the family court’s order... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.3d+502"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Davies v. Krasna (1974) 14 Cal.3d 502</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="220+Cal.App.4th+358"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Davis v. Kiewit (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 358</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Kiewit Pacific Co. (2013) – 373.) As we have discussed, appellants have elected not to include a complete transcript of Yang’s testimony from the liability phase when these topics were covered. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.App.5th+897"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Davis v. Kozak (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 897</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Kozak (2020) –911, italics added.) As illustrated by the cases involving employment arbitration agreements, when important statutory rights are at stake... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.4th+268"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Day v. City (2000) 25 Cal.4th 268</a>

  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: City of Fontana (2001) .) We construe the statutory language in context and in light of the statute’s purpose. (Apple, at p. 135; Lungren v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.3d+727"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Day v. City (1986) 45 Cal.3d 727</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="216+Cal.+23"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">216 Cal. 23</a>

  • In re Brace: Like Siberell, these cases typically dealt with divorce or other interspousal disputes. (See, e.g., Delanoy v. Delanoy (1932) dispute between wife and husband’s mother over husband’s conveyance of his... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="48+Cal.App.5th+1014"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2019) 48 Cal.App.5th 1014</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: And they are not germane to the trial court’s ruling. 10 Separately and alternatively, Bewley forfeited all of these arguments (other than his law of the case argument), [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.3d+557"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Denham v. Superior (1969) 2 Cal.3d 557</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Lu has not borne her burden to demonstrate error. [context]
  • Conservatorship of Farrant: Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566 (Denham).) When the probate court ordered appellant to account, the court said, “It’s a standard, when there’s a fiduciary... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.4th+1017"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Department of Labor v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1995) 13 Cal.4th 1017</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.App.4th+1110"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Desai v. Farmers Insurance Group (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1110</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Exchange (1996) .) We affirm the judgment if it is correct on any ground stated in the demurrer, regardless of the trial court's stated reasons. (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Exchange (1996) .) We affirm the judgment if it is correct on any ground stated in the demurrer, regardless of the trial court's stated reasons. (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="118+Cal.App.4th+702"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (2003) 118 Cal.App.4th 702</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="206+Cal.App.4th+201"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. McGurk (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 201</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: McGurk (2012) .) It follows that a default, once obtained, is likewise good against the world. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.5th+1109"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dhillon v. John (2016) 2 Cal.5th 1109</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: John Muir Health (2017) “an application for a writ of administrative mandamus is a ‘special proceeding of a civil nature’ ”.) In fact, the Legislature referred to applications for a writ of mandate as... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.App.5th+1190"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Incorporated (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A court’s oral pronouncement that conflicts with its later written order is not controlling; the written order is the operative judgment.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="226+Cal.App.4th+691"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dieckmeyer v. Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach (2013) 226 Cal.App.4th 691</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Rankin (2014) (Syers) finding no abuse of discretion in employing Laffey matrix in San Francisco litigation.) Syers is particularly informative. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="144+Cal.+329"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">144 Cal. 329</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="186+Cal.App.4th+1215"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="111+Cal.App.4th+912"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Diego v. San (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 912</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2003) a purpose of the standing requirement is “to protect a defendant from harassment”.) On the other hand, allowing perpetual standing to an individual who no longer st... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="30+Cal.App.5th+457"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Diego v. Superior (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 457</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Superior Court (2018) , 471-472; but see In re Jasmine S. (2007) 153 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="153+Cal.App.4th+835"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Diego v. Superior (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 835</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: App.5th 457, 462, 471-472; but see In re Jasmine S. (2007) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="177+Cal.App.4th+771"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dietz v. Meisenheimer (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.App.4th+888"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A party may not rely on a mere “passing reference” to an issue; an appellate brief must set out each point under its own heading and support it with argument and authority,

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.2d+597"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dist. v. All Parties 47 Cal.2d 597</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.App.5th+480"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">District v. Torres (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 480</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Torres Construction Corp. (2020) .) Because Bewley has not provided any reasoned analysis of his statutory arguments — and in particular, because he has not shown that Humphrey was not claiming the pr... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="708+F.3d+1340"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">708 F.3d 1340</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: United States (Fed. Cir. 2013) 708 F.3d 1340, 1359 (Casitas) physical taking claim based on right to beneficial use of water accrued not when agency issued opinion, but whenever diversion might occur; [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: United States (Fed. Cir. 2013) 708 F.3d 1340, 1359 (Casitas) physical taking claim based on right to beneficial use of water accrued not when agency issued opinion, but whenever diversion might occur; [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="89+Cal.App.4th+530"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dobler v. Arluk Medical Center Industrial Group, Incorporated (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 530</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A claim against a decedent’s estate must be filed within the statutory deadline; timely filing is a condition precedent to any suit against the estate.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.App.5th+360"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Doe v. Allee (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) [context]
  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) -387.) In arguing that Emergency rule 9 applies to the appearance period, Surety invokes the general proposition that “issues dealing with forfeiture of bail bonds must b... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.5th+1055"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Doe v. Regents (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Regents of the University of California (2016) “Credibility is an issue of fact for the finder of fact to resolve”; Knight v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.App.4th+918"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Doe v. Regents (1991) 4 Cal.App.4th 918</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: City of Capitola (1992) “Good faith, or its absence, involves a factual inquiry into the person’s subjective state of mind”.) “Appellate courts ‘do not reweigh evidence... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="80+Cal.App.5th+282"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Doe v. Regents of University of California (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 282</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: Standing to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and a non‑party who is aggrieved by a judgment may acquire appellate standing by moving to vacate that judgment.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="15+Cal.3d+660"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 666; Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120, 123.) As a result, a trial court has no jurisdiction to vacate, modify or otherwise change an order that is the subject of a pend... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.3d+180"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge, et al. District (1979) 23 Cal.3d 180</a>

  • Conservatorship of R.J.: A claim of error that was not timely objected to or preserved at trial is waived and may not be raised on appeal. Issues must be raised in the appropriate form at the trial level to be reviewable.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.4th+503"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Donaldson v. National (2004) 35 Cal.4th 503</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.4th+412"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Donkin v. Donkin (2012) 58 Cal.4th 412</a>

  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: Donkin (2013) .) The court’s interpretation of a no contest clause and application of the clause to a proposed action is necessarily informed by competing policy interests. [context]
  • Packard v. Packard: Donkin (2013) (Donkin).) 3 Unlike a trust contest, a claim for reformation of a trust based on mistake is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. (Getty v. [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: The Law Concerning No Contest Provisions No contest clauses respect the intent of a donor by “discouraging litigation by persons whose expectations are frustrated by the donative scheme of the instrum... [context]
  • Donkin v. Donkin: Donkin (2013) (Donkin I), the California Supreme Court explained the marital deduction and its role in estate planning as follows: “Federal law allows the property of a deceased spouse to be passed to... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="241+Cal.App.4th+529"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Doolittle v. Exchange (2014) 241 Cal.App.4th 529</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: Exchange Bank (2015) .) On appeal, “‘“the question becomes whether the . . . evidence was (1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and (2) ‘of such a character... [context]
  • Eyford v. Nord: Exchange Bank (2015) .) B. [context]
  • Gomez v. Smith: Exchange Bank (2015) ) because a rebuttable presumption exists under section 810, subdivision (a), that all persons have the capacity to make testamentary decisions. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="199+Cal.App.4th+1509"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dozier v. Shapiro (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1509</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Shapiro (2011) (Dozier).) By requiring the parties to provide a summary of each potential expert’s anticipated testimony, the expert witness designation procedures provide the parties with the ability... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="217+Cal.App.4th+400"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Drake v. Pinkham (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 400</a>

  • Barefoot v. Jennings: Pinkham (2013) - 409 individual petitioned under § 17200 claiming two amendments to a trust that disinherited her were invalid on the ground the settlor was incompetent; [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="232+Cal.App.4th+24"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Drell v. Cohen (2013) 232 Cal.App.4th 24</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.3d+26"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1990) 54 Cal.3d 26</a>

  • Marriage of Wendt and Pullen: 4 early in the proceedings, to preserve each party’s rights by ordering, if necessary based on the income and needs assessments, one party, except a governmental entity, to pay to the other party, [context]
  • In re Brace: Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 35.) By securing to both spouses equal management rights over community property, the Legislature eroded the original impetus for facilitating the wife’s ow... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.2d+75"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">13 Cal.2d 75</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: State Bd. of Funeral Directors (1939) 13 Cal.2d 75; Laisne v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.2d+831"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">19 Cal.2d 831</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.2d+879"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">20 Cal.2d 879</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="298+U.S.+38"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">298 U.S. 38</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.App.5th+154"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dudek v. Dudek (2018) 34 Cal.App.5th 154</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: Dudek (2019) –171; see also Estate of Kraus (2010) 184 Cal. [context]
  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Dudek (2019) without discussion, sustaining demurrer filed three months after probate petition was filed.) And trial courts have employed different methods of resolving this conflict. (Christo & Vrem. [context]
  • Estate of Eimers: Dudek (2019) (Dudek).) When reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we accept as true the material facts alleged in the complaint or petition, but not contentions, deductions, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="184+Cal.App.4th+103"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dudek v. Dudek (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 103</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: App.5th 154, 170–171; see also Estate of Kraus (2010) –118 (Kraus); Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal. [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: 25. discussed, we conclude the undeveloped claims fall well short of establishing grounds for reversal. V. Liability Under Section 859 A. Statutory Interpretation Section 850 et seq. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="160+Cal.App.4th+62"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dudek v. Dudek (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 62</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: App.4th 103, 117–118 (Kraus); Estate of Young (2008) “Section 850 et seq. provides a mechanism for court determination of rights in property claimed to belong to a decedent or another person.”.) 12 b. [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: Statutory Interpretation Section 850 et seq. “provides a mechanism for court determination of rights in property claimed to belong to a decedent or another person.” (Estate of Young (2008) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="90+Cal.App.4th+255"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dudley v. Department (2000) 90 Cal.App.4th 255</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Department of Transportation (2001) (Dudley).) Our authority to consider alternative reasons for affirmance is particularly significant in this case because Richard’s motion to the probate court conta... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.App.5th+232"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Duffey v. Tender (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 232</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Tender Heart Home Care Agency, LLC (2019) fn. 17.) Moreover, Ginsberg cites this statement about Knapp’s understanding of Tinker’s financial status in the argument section of his response brief. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="372+U.S.+609"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">372 U.S. 609</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Rank (1963) , 625-626 downstream water rights holders challenged upstream impounding from Friant Dam construction; if available, remedy would be damages based on market value before and after taking; [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Rank (1963) , 625-626 downstream water rights holders challenged upstream impounding from Friant Dam construction; if available, remedy would be damages based on market value before and after taking; [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="211+Cal.+583"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">211 Cal. 583</a>

  • In re Brace: Mullan (1931) (Dunn), a 12 In re BRACE Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. dispute between the administrator of a deceased husband’s estate and the administrators of his deceased wife’s estate. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="183+Cal.App.4th+1350"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Durell v. Sharp (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350</a>

E

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.App.5th+1229"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">E.g., T.J. v. Superior Court (2017) 21 Cal.App.5th 1229</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="207+Cal.App.4th+621"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eddie E., supra, at pp. 627-628, third italics added; see B.F. v. Superior Court (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 621</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.App.4th+1848"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eells v. Rosenblum (1994) 36 Cal.App.4th 1848</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Rosenblum (1995) (Eells).) But “ ‘it is not enough . . . merely to show that the proceeding was dismissed.’ Citation. The reasons for the dismissal of the action must be examined to determine whether... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="117+Cal.App.4th+364"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ehrenclou v. MacDonald (2003) 117 Cal.App.4th 364</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: Both cases also involved principles of comity that are inapplicable here, based on the rule that adoption status “ ‘is determined by the laws of the state in which the adoption was effected. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.4th+854"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ehrlich v. City (1995) 12 Cal.4th 854</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: City of Culver City (1996) , fn. 4 argument not raised below is “not cognizable”.) In the lower court, Mary argued the notary requirement served no purpose... [context]
  • Breslin v. Breslin: City of Culver City (1996) , fn. 4 court will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal.) Estate of Bennett (2008) 163 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="106+Cal.App.4th+967"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eichenbaum v. Alon (2002) 106 Cal.App.4th 967</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="203+Cal.App.4th+97"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eiskamp v. Pajaro (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 97</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Agency (2012) , 105-106 challenge to 2002 ordinance increasing groundwater augmentation charges was barred by 2008 stipulated judgment that addressed similar ordinances and extinguished claims as to a... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Agency (2012) , 105-106 challenge to 2002 ordinance increasing groundwater augmentation charges was barred by 2008 stipulated judgment that addressed similar ordinances and extinguished claims as to a... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="176+Cal.App.4th+532"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Electric v. Fair (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 532</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Fair Employment & Housing Com. (2009) , 546 upholding the trial court’s conclusion “there was substantial evidence to support the administrative finding that there was clear and convincing evidence of... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.4th+1337"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Elkins v. Superior (2006) 41 Cal.4th 1337</a>

  • Guardianship of A.H.: Superior Court (2007) .) At the same time, however, “‘it is . . . well established that courts have . . . inherent power to control litigation before them. Citation. . . . “ . . . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="187+Cal.App.4th+1206"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ellerbee v. County (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1206</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: County of Los Angeles (2010) , Tukes counters that we should review 15 In responding to Richard and Brown’s cross-appeal, Tukes notes our authority to strike their opening brief for failure to include... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="104+Cal.App.4th+1421"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Elyaoudayan v. Hoffman (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1421</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Hoffman (2003) Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 allows “a ‘mix and match’ approach to the manner of agreement as long as all parties agree to the same material terms”; accord, Critzer v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="125+Cal.App.4th+487"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Embree v. Embree (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 487</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A judgment creditor who has not previously attached a judgment lien to a debtor’s property before the debtor’s death cannot later create such a lien;

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.2d+146"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">23 Cal.2d 146</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: San Joaquin County Central Labor Council (1943) 23 Cal.2d 146, 160.) Because the court’s judgment on Hilja’s elder abuse petition effectively demonstrated that the gist of Hilja’s statement accusing K... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="169+Cal.App.4th+340"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 340</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: Co. (2008) .) We independently review due process claims “because ‘the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law.’ ” (In re Jonathan V. (2018) 19 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.3d+1379"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Employment & Housing Com. (1986) 43 Cal.3d 1379</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1386-1387.) “ ‘If there is no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs. [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387.) Applying the Ribal holding to our first hypothetical scenario illustrates its deviation from the plain language of section 859. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.App.5th+391"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Enforcement v. Spitzer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 391</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.App.5th+21"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Enforcement v. Spitzer (2018) 33 Cal.App.5th 21</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.App.5th+675"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Eng v. Brown (2017) 21 Cal.App.5th 675</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Brown (2018) “An association organized as another entity (e.g., a corporation) is not a partnership. (§ 16202, subd. (b).) Absent unusual circumstances... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="231+Cal.App.4th+1022"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Engine Manufacturers Assn. v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 231 Cal.App.4th 1022</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.App.5th+292"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ensworth v. Mullvain (2018) 37 Cal.App.5th 292</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: App.3d 1105, 1111, footnote 2. 5 E.g., Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (2019) ; T. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="29+Cal.4th+53"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Enterprises v. Consumer (2001) 29 Cal.4th 53</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Under section 425.16, subdivision (b)(2), the trial court in making these determinations considers ‘the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.App.4th+1373"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Environmental Protection Information Center, Inc. v. Maxxam Corp. (1991) 4 Cal.App.4th 1373</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="185+Cal.+700"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">185 Cal. 700</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: Influence “is not undue unless the pressure has reached a point where the mind of the person subjected to it gives way” and “represents in truth but the conviction or desire of another. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.App.5th+1066"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Ashlock (2019) 45 Cal.App.5th 1066</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: App.4th 1281, 1286 Probate Code section 859 penalties are not equivalent to punitive damages; Estate of Ashlock (2020) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="131+Cal.App.3d+471"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A trust amendment is voidable if the maker lacked testamentary capacity or was subjected to undue influence; either ground alone is sufficient to invalidate the amendment.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="170+Cal.+578"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">170 Cal. 578</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: App.4th at p. 577; Estate of Baker (1915) –582 (Baker).) Otherwise, an unsuccessful party would have two appeals from the same judgment: one appeal provided by law within a limited time period... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="187+Cal.+566"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">187 Cal. 566</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: 13 property in Massachusetts, came to California intending to make it his permanent home, and “resided here continuously for some six years past” before his sister’s death. (Id. at p. 128. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="193+Cal.App.4th+885"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Bartsch (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 885</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: App.5th 284, 290 (Miller); Estate of Bartsch (2011) .) We also review de novo the probate court’s decision to apply California and not Indiana law in determining parentage between Charles and Judy. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="163+Cal.App.4th+1303"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Bennett (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1303</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Therefore, even if she had a due process right to present evidence at that hearing, she waived that right. Christine also relies on section 1022, which provides that “an affidavit... [context]
  • Breslin v. Breslin: City of Culver City (1996) , fn. 4 court will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal.) Estate of Bennett (2008) , is of no help to the Pacific parties. [context]
  • Conservatorship of Farrant: 8 “It has long been the rule that in probate matters ‘affidavits may not be used in evidence unless permitted by statute. . . .’” (Estate of Bennett (2008) -1309. [context]
  • Dunlap v. Mayer: App.4th 7 615, 620.) “Section 1022 authorizes the use of declarations only in an ‘uncontested proceeding.’ ” (Estate of Bennett (2008) .) “When a petition is contested, as it was here... [context]
  • Conservatorship of O.B.: 2Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Probate Code. provides, “An affidavit or verified petition shall be received as evidence when offered in an uncontested proceeding under t... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="88+Cal.App.5th+532"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Berger (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 532</a>

  • Johnson v. Estate of Williams: The principles established in Estate of Berger , 540 further support this requirement [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="87+Cal.App.4th+461"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Bibb (2000) 87 Cal.App.4th 461</a>

  • In re Brace: Estate of Bibb (2001) 28 In re BRACE Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. –470 (Bibb) “The more general form of title presumption created by Vehicle Code sections 4150.. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.2d+756"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">60 Cal.2d 756</a>

  • Barefoot v. Jennings: litigation to continue. (Warth v. Seldin (1975) standing in federal courts; Estate of Plaut (1945) 27 Cal.2d 424, 426, 429-430 will contest.) The applicable Probate Code provisions support plaintiff’s... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.2d+184"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">18 Cal.2d 184</a>

  • Barefoot v. Jennings: litigation to continue. (Warth v. Seldin (1975) standing in federal courts; Estate of Plaut (1945) 27 Cal.2d 424, 426, 429-430 will contest.) The applicable Probate Code provisions support plaintiff’s... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="165+Cal.App.4th+7"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Bonanno (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 7</a>

  • Amundson v. Catello: 7 This ownership requirement was met, the siblings claim, because Decedent’s estate was an intestate estate when they filed their partition claim. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="169+Cal.App.4th+684"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Rather, it concerns assigning exclusive responsibility over certain actions to a superior court’s probate department as against other departments in that same county superior court... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="236+Cal.App.4th+127"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Britel (2014) 236 Cal.App.4th 127</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: Standard of Review This case involves an heirship claim based on undisputed facts that requires application of various statutes, including those defining the meaning 7 of parent and child and whether... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.App.5th+284"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Britel (2018) 34 Cal.App.5th 284</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="157+Cal.App.4th+1385"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Buchman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1385</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Naumann (2007) .) “A voluntary dismissal, even one without prejudice, may be a favorable termination which will support an action for malicious prosecution. Citation. ‘In most cases... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="146+Cal.App.4th+1021"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Burden (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1021</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: App.4th at p. 135.) Section 6453 “contains the rules for determining who is a ‘natural parent.’ ” (Estate of Burden (2007) .) Under “section 6453, subdivision (a)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="70+Cal.2d+150"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">70 Cal.2d 150</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: Therefore, the 1991 Decree is void. Respondents’ attempts to salvage the 1991 Decree are unavailing. They argue the 1991 Decree cannot be collaterally attacked, citing Estate of Callnon (1969) 70 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="22+Cal.App.5th+824"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Casserley (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 824</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A judgment lien cannot be created against a decedent’s estate by filing an abstract of judgment after the debtor’s death; the creditor must instead file a timely claim in the probate proceeding to see...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.App.4th+367"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Castiglioni (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 367</a>

  • In re Brace: Sess.) as amended Apr. 4, 1983, p. 2.) And some cases, mostly in the probate context, appeared to treat Siberell’s form of title presumption as a rule of common law existing separate... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.2d+227"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">46 Cal.2d 227</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: App.3d 581, 591 (Lazzarone).) However, the probate court has inherent equitable authority to set aside an order or decree when extrinsic factors have deprived a party of a fair adversary hearing. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.App.3d+1114"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Cooper (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 1114</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A party cannot introduce a factual argument for the first time on appeal; issues and factual contentions must be raised in the trial court before an appellate court will consider them.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.2d+859"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Cover 27 Cal.2d 859</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 862–863, quoting Mills v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.2d+672"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">37 Cal.2d 672</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.App.4th+78"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Damskog (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 78</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: App.4th 396, 401 (Heath) stating in passing that decedent’s German sisters were “ineligible for appointment as administrators because they did not reside in the United States”; [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.5th+29"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Dayan (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 29</a>

  • Packard v. Packard: Standard of Review A motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a general demurrer, and the standard of review on appeal is the same. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f)(2)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="73+Cal.App.4th+463"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Della Sala (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 463</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Wu for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ INTRODUCTION “ ‘The right to dispose of property in contemplation of death is as old as the right to acquire and possess property... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+791"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Dito (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 791</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Section 259 does not necessarily eliminate the abuser’s entitlement to a share of the estate; it simply restricts the value of the estate to which the abuser’s percentage share is applied... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.3d+311"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Dodge (1971) 6 Cal.3d 311</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: Further, as explained by our Supreme Court in Estate of Dodge (1971) 6 Cal.3d 311, the phrase “personal property” is “one whose inherent ambiguity has been noted in many court decisions. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.4th+871"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Duke (2013) 61 Cal.4th 871</a>

  • Packard v. Packard: App.4th 51, 80, italics omitted.) “The purpose of reformation is to carry out the wishes of the testator, and the remedy reflects no judgment other than a preference for disposition pursuant to the wi... [context]
  • Estate of Boyajian: Robert cites no California practice guide instructing practitioners to advise their clients they may revoke wills with stand-alone revocations. [context]
  • Wilkin v. Nelson: He cited Estate of Duke (2015) [context]
  • Estate of Eimers: Analysis A will may be reformed to conform to the testator’s intent if clear and convincing evidence establishes that the will contains a mistake in the testator’s expression of intent at the time the... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="74+Cal.App.5th+697"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Duke (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 697</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="92+Cal.App.4th+966"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Dye (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 966</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: For example, there is no evidence that the word “shall” was intended to mean may, or that the word “issue” was intended to mean any person of Joan’s choosing. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="75+Cal.App.4th+973"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Her opening brief discusses the de novo standard, which applies to questions of law, but the primary legal issue is one she does not raise, i.e., which party had the burden of proof below. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="66+Cal.App.4th+244"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Ferber (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 244</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: The evidence is sufficient for Robert to proceed on a claim that Dae’s Petition was frivolous Citing Estate of Ferber (1998) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="98+Cal.App.5th+619"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Flores (2025) 98 Cal.App.5th 619</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: App.3d 1131, 1135.) A proceeding under this section is “permissive”; if no such petition is filed, “the court may determine who is entitled to distribution in a final distribution order. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.4th+160"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Ford (2002) 32 Cal.4th 160</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: Guiding Principles Sections define “the parent-child relationship for purposes of intestate succession.” (Estate of Ford (2004) .) As relevant here, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="87+Cal.App.5th+234"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Franco (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 234</a>

  • Johnson v. Estate of Williams: Code § 8461; see also Estate of Franco , 241 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.2d+131"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">47 Cal.2d 131</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: App.4th 1303, 1309.) When, however, “the parties did not object to the use of affidavits in evidence, and both parties adopted that means of supporting their positions”... [context]
  • Conservatorship of Farrant: The probate court properly considered the affidavits and declarations. (Estate of Fraysher (1956) 47 Cal.2d 131 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.2d+108"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">57 Cal.2d 108</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: Robert does not cite to any case where a trial court found against undue influence and an appellate court reversed that factual determination. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+Cal.4th+1058"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Giraldin (2011) 55 Cal.4th 1058</a>

  • Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anon v. Narcotics Anon World Svcs: While a trust is revocable and the person holding the power to revoke it remains competent, the trustee owes duties to the person holding the power to revoke the trust. (Ibid.... [context]
  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Such property “is considered the property of the settlor for the settlor’s lifetime.” (Estate of Giraldin (2012) –1066.) “A revocable inter vivos trust is recognized as simply ‘a probate avoidance dev... [context]
  • Marriage of Wendt and Pullen: Reynolds (2017) .) California generally follows the common law of trusts, except as modified by statute. (Estate of Giraldin (2012) .) The law regarding spendthrift trusts is stated as follows: “Under... [context]
  • Barefoot v. Jennings: DISCUSSION Underlying this action is the revocable trust that Maynord and her deceased husband created in 1986. “A revocable trust is a trust that the person who creates it, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="102+Cal.App.4th+1296"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Gonzalez (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1296</a>

  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: App.3d at p. 587.) The commission’s report on the 2010 amendments augments these contrasts, expressly repudiating the equivalency of the two legal standards set forth in the decisions, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="123+Cal.App.4th+67"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Goyette (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 67</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: App.3d 526, 531-532 “Once the testamentary scheme or general intention of a trust or will is discovered, the meaning of particular words and phrases is to be subordinated to this scheme, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.4th+904"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Griswold (2000) 25 Cal.4th 904</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: App.4th 1021, 1026.) Under “section 6453, subdivision (a), a natural parent and child relationship is established where the relationship is presumed under the Uniform Parentage Act and not rebutted. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="90+Cal.App.4th+1403"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Guidotti (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1403</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: When interpreting a trust, the court must exercise its own independent judgment to determine the meaning of the instrument’s language.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.App.4th+582"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Gump (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 582</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: 3 “Among the duties of the trustee is the duty to administer the trust and to manage trust property ‘with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a pruden... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.2d+120"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 666; Estate of Hanley (1943) 23 Cal.2d 120, 123.) As a result, a trial court has no jurisdiction to vacate, modify or otherwise change an order that is the subject of a pend... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="166+Cal.App.4th+396"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Heath (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 396</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: More recent cases were not helpful because nonresidency was conceded. (See Estate of Heath (2008) (Heath) stating in passing that decedent’s German sisters were “ineligible for appointment as administ... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.App.4th+943"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A claim on a note may be pursued directly in a civil action without first obtaining probate‑court permission or filing a Heggstad petition. The probate process is not a prerequisite to suing on such a...
  • Barefoot v. Jennings: More recently, the Court of Appeal in Estate of Heggstad (1993) explained that an expansive reading of the standing afforded to trust challenges under section 17200 “not only makes sense as a matter o... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.App.5th+894"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Herzog (2018) 33 Cal.App.5th 894</a>

  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: 11 appellant’s evidence was (1) “uncontradicted and unimpeached” and (2) “of such a character and weight as to leave no room for a judicial determination that it was insufficient to support a finding. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="180+Cal.App.4th+1517"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Herzog (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.5th+258"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Herzog (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 258</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.App.4th+890"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Hilton (1995) 44 Cal.App.4th 890</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: In probate proceedings, the court appoints a personal representative to administer the decedent’s estate. “That person or firm ordinarily is (a) an ‘executor’ named as such in the decedent’s will, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.App.5th+1049"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Holdaway (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1049</a>

  • Estate of Eimers: App.5th 154, 163 (Dudek).) When reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we accept as true the material facts alleged in the complaint or petition, but not contentions, deductions, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="66+Cal.App.5th+777"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Kalfus (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 777</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="201+Cal.App.4th+971"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Kampen (2012) 201 Cal.App.4th 971</a>

  • Ring v. Harmon: Code, § 9601, subd. (a); Estate of Kampen (2011) .) The beneficiary may also have an independent cause of action for damages against the representative. (Prob. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.2d+277"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">56 Cal.2d 277</a>

  • Sachs v. Sachs: The subdivision applies to a will, trust, deed, or any other instrument. (§ 21101.) Such extrinsic evidence includes parole evidence. (Estate of Karkeet (1961) 56 Cal.2d 277 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.App.4th+51"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Katleman (1992) 13 Cal.App.4th 51</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: 19 As the court noted, in Article Two of the Trust, O’Brian stated he was “intentionally not providing for” any person “who claims to be his descendant or heir... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.5th+709"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Kerkorian (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 709</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: City and County of San Francisco (2006) , 674 (San Francisco Firefighters) holding “necessary” in context of Charter provision was intended “in its broader sense, i.e., ‘that which is . . . [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: City and County of San Francisco (2006) , 674 (San Francisco Firefighters) holding “necessary” in context of Charter provision was intended “in its broader sense, i.e., ‘that which is . . . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="166+Cal.App.4th+1024"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Kievernagel (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1024</a>

  • Robertson v. Saadat: App.4th 836 (Hecht), and Estate of Kievernagel (2008) (Kievernagel). A. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="109+Cal.App.2d+709"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Kirkpatrick’s (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 709</a>

  • Conservatorship of Martha: An interested party must expressly allege specific objections to an accounting in writing; failure to do so constitutes a waiver of those objections.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="180+Cal.App.2d+313"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Lauth (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 313</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: An error in applying the capacity standard is harmless when the trust amendment is already invalidated on an independent ground, such as a finding of undue influence. Consequently,

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.2d+289"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">38 Cal.2d 289</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: The court further recognized that “Mark’s future interest as a contingent remainder beneficiary also came into existence when McKie Sr. died” and that “Mark’s interest could not be defeated by McKie J... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="177+Cal.App.4th+667"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667</a>

  • Conservatorship of Farrant: 8 “It has long been the rule that in probate matters ‘affidavits may not be used in evidence unless permitted by statute. . . .’” (Estate of Bennett (2008) -1309. [context]
  • Dunlap v. Mayer: App.4th 1303, 1309.) “When a petition is contested, as it was here, . . . absent a stipulation among the parties to the contrary, each allegation in a verified petition... [context]
  • Conservatorship of O.B.: App.4th 1303, 1309.) “When a petition is contested, as it was here, . . . absent a stipulation among the parties to the contrary, each allegation in a verified petition... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="254+Cal.App.2d+309"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Lockwood (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 309</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A court may infer a testator’s testamentary capacity from lay witnesses’ observations of the testator’s cognitive abilities and behavior, without requiring formal medical or psychological testing.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="118+Cal.App.4th+220"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Lowrie (2003) 118 Cal.App.4th 220</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: 15 abandonment and . . . this state has a responsibility to protect these persons”; “mental and verbal limitations often leave them vulnerable to abuse and incapable of asking for help and protection”... [context]
  • Keading v. Keading: Code, § 15600 et seq.) is “ ‘essentially to protect a particularly vulnerable portion of the population from gross mistreatment in the form of abuse and custodial neglect. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.2d+472"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">26 Cal.2d 472</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: There, nonmarital children sought to inherit from their paternal grandmother, claiming in part that their father “legitimated” them under former Civil Code section 230 by acknowledging them as his own... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.2d+419"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">34 Cal.2d 419</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: There, nonmarital children sought to inherit from their paternal grandmother, claiming in part that their father “legitimated” them under former Civil Code section 230 by acknowledging them as his own... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.3d+262"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of MacDonald (1989) 51 Cal.3d 262</a>

  • In re Brace: Rep. (1984) pp. 224–225; see Estate of MacDonald (1990) 51 Cal.3d 262, 269 (MacDonald).) The legislation provides that for property acquired on or after January 1, 1985... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="184+Cal.App.3d+593"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Mann (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 593</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A court’s factual findings must be supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record; if the record lacks such evidence, the findings are deemed insufficient and cannot be upheld.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="118+Cal.App.4th+750"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Miramontes (2003) 118 Cal.App.4th 750</a>

  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: The court’s order denying the requested findings completely disposes of the matter before it and leaves no further issues to be resolved. (See Estate of Miramontes-Najera (2004) holding that a probate... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="76+Cal.App.4th+1378"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Mitchell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1378</a>

  • In re Brace: App.4th at p. 463 grant deed signed by husband conveying separate property home to himself “and his wife as joint tenants”; Estate of Mitchell (1999) title taken as “ ‘Robert S. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="107+Cal.App.4th+338"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Mowry (2002) 107 Cal.App.4th 338</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: 8 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) “The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.” (Ibid.) Neither the trial court nor this court will rewrite the complaint. (Gould v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.2d+733"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">57 Cal.2d 733</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) While not all provisions of “the Code of Civil Procedure apply to probate proceedings,” the proceedings “are to conform only ‘as nearly as is consistently possible... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="122+Cal.+224"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">122 Cal. 224</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: It construed a predecessor statute of section 6120 and explained that, “in its primal significance,” to cancel a will required a “lattice work” or “‘criss-cross’” drawn on top of preexisting text. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.+379"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Olson (1912) 19 Cal.App. 379</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: Undue influence is a distinct, independent ground from testamentary capacity, and a finding of either undue influence or lack of capacity alone is sufficient to invalidate a trust amendment.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="165+Cal.App.3d+157"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Parrette (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 157</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: Property transferred to a revocable inter vivos trust does not become part of the settlor’s probate estate; therefore, it is not subject to probate administration even if the settlor retains a life in...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.App.4th+1742"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Petersen (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1742</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: App.5th 159, 171; Estate of Petersen (1994) .) 13 Any “interested person, as defined in Section 48 of the Probate Code” (Welf. & Inst. [context]
  • Parker v. Schwarcz: App.3d 161, the court adjudicated a section 851.5 petition brought by decedent’s estate seeking one-half of the net proceeds from the sale of a family residence. (Id. at pp. 164–165. [context]
  • In re Brace: App.3d 1092, 1097, fn. 2 creditor case reasoning that “since the grant deed by which the Kanes acquired the property in 1969 provides that title is in joint tenancy... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.2d+862"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Platt 23 Cal.2d 862</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: We therefore conclude that minors for whom a guardian ad litem is appointed may petition for removal of the guardian ad litem. (See Guardianship of Gilman (1944) 23 Cal.2d 862 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.2d+424"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">27 Cal.2d 424</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: App.2d 788, 792 “An ‘interested person’ is one who has a pecuniary interest . . . .”.) In other probate contexts, courts have explained that limitation serves the important purpose of “preventing pers... [context]
  • Barefoot v. Jennings: S. 490, 501 standing in federal courts; Estate of Plaut (1945) 27 Cal.2d 424, 426, 429-430 will contest.) The applicable Probate Code provisions support plaintiff’s standing to challenge the merits of... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="83+Cal.App.4th+1434"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434</a>

  • Pearce v. Briggs: In other words, the wills at issue in these cases contained contracts that, as such, reflected an unequivocal intent, on the part of the joint tenants, [context]
  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: Analysis).) The bill was intended to clarify uncertainty in the law stemming from court decisions that limited the right of a surviving spouse to revoke a joint trust after the death of the first sett... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="173+Cal.App.4th+119"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Prindle (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 119</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: 7 is not limited to: Âś (a) Any interested state, local, or federal entity or agency. Âś (b) Any interested public officer or employee of this state or of a local public entity of this state or of the f... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.2d+162"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">1 Cal.2d 162</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: 11 In this context, a delusion “has been defined to be the conception of a disordered mind which imagines facts to exist of which there is no evidence and the belief in which is adhered to against all... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="69+Cal.2d+200"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">69 Cal.2d 200</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="148+Cal.App.4th+97"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Russell (2006) 148 Cal.App.4th 97</a>

  • Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anon v. Narcotics Anon World Svcs: Fremont General Corp. (2007) –118.) In this peculiar situation, we treat the evidentiary material Autonomous Region attached to its supplemental briefing as offers of proof to convince the probate cou... [context]
  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: The Trial Court Did Not Err in Granting Judgment on the Pleadings The trial court determined “Hankin does not meet any of the criteria” to maintain a petition pursuant to section 1820... [context]
  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Fremont General Corp. (2007) (Fremont); StorMedia, Inc. v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Fremont General Corp. (2007) .) Further, 'if another proper ground for sustaining the demurrer exists, this court will still affirm the demurrer . . . .' (Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Fremont General Corp. (2007) .) Further, 'if another proper ground for sustaining the demurrer exists, this court will still affirm the demurrer . . . .' (Jocer Enterprises, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.3d+607"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Sanders (1984) 40 Cal.3d 607</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: 25 or one of friendship.’ Citations.” (Estate of Sanders (1985) 40 Cal.3d 607, 615 (Sanders).) “Fiduciary” and “confidential” have been used interchangeably to describe a relationship in which one par... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.App.5th+86"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Sapp (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 86</a>

  • Johnson v. Estate of Williams: As stated in Estate of Sapp , 93, a person must have a direct pecuniary interest in the estate to have standing to object to the appointment of an administrator [context]
  • Estate of El Wardani: It began by acknowledging that as the party seeking her removal, Ali bore the burden of proving grounds for removing Janine as administrator. (See Estate of Sapp (2019) (Sapp). [context]
  • Eyford v. Nord: We cannot reweigh the evidence; we determine only if there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the judgment. (Estate of Sapp (2019) . [context]
  • Schrage v. Schrage: Proc., § 913; Estate of Sapp (2019) ; Patchett v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.2d+93"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">35 Cal.2d 93</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: The testator must 9 have intended, by the particular instrument offered for probate, to make a revocable disposition of his property to take effect upon his death.” (Estate of Sargavak (1950) 35 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.4th+1045"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Saueressig (2005) 38 Cal.4th 1045</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: 9 have intended, by the particular instrument offered for probate, to make a revocable disposition of his property to take effect upon his death.” (Estate of Sargavak (1950) 35 Cal.2d 93... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.2d+248"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">56 Cal.2d 248</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: As a general matter, probate proceedings are statutory in nature, such that the trial court “has no other powers than those given by statute and such incidental powers as pertain to it... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="141+Cal.+366"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">141 Cal. 366</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: As a general matter, probate proceedings are statutory in nature, such that the trial court “has no other powers than those given by statute and such incidental powers as pertain to it... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="93+Cal.App.4th+593"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Sigourney (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 593</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: It extends to every species of right and interest capable of being enjoyed as such upon which it is practicable to place a money 19 value.” ’ ” (Estate of Sigourney (2001) ... [context]
  • Roth v. Jelley: But “even remote interests are entitled to a measure of due process.” (Estate of Sigourney (2001) , citing Mullane, supra, 339 U. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="15+Cal.3d+838"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Sigourney (1975) 15 Cal.3d 838</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: App.4th 593, 603; see, e.g., In re Marriage of Brown (1976) 15 Cal.3d 838, 845 a contractual right is “a chose in action, a form of property”; Mahan v. [context]
  • Roth v. Jelley: First, “the law has long recognized that a contingent future interest is property no matter how improbable the contingency” (In re Marriage of Brown (1976) 15 Cal.3d 838, 846, fn. 8)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="193+Cal.App.4th+236"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Stoker (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 236</a>

  • Packard v. Packard: 2 Elsewhere in the Probate Code, a “contest” to a will is defined as “a pleading filed with the court by a beneficiary that would result in a penalty under a no contest clause, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="107+Cal.App.4th+996"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Strader (2002) 107 Cal.App.4th 996</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: A court must consider the purposes that the trustor sought to obtain by the provisions of his or her trust. (Estate of Strader (2003) –1003.) Consequently, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.2d+42"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">38 Cal.2d 42</a>

  • Breslin v. Breslin: And unlike the situation in Smith, the facts here changed dramatically after mediation, when Breslin found a document—Exhibit A—that confirmed the Pacific parties’ unqualified right to inherit funds f... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="71+Cal.App.5th+832"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Tollette (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 832</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="49+Cal.3d+868"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Trynin (1988) 49 Cal.3d 868</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: 11 Former section 911 provided that “an attorney who has rendered services to an estate’s representative may obtain compensation by petitioning the superior court sitting in probate for an order requi... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.2d+793"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">16 Cal.2d 793</a>

  • Pearce v. Briggs: 11. England (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1, 4 an interest in a joint tenancy cannot be devised by will; Guardianship of Wood (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 260, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="139+Cal.App.4th+434"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Estate of Williams (2005) 139 Cal.App.4th 434</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: App.3d 141, 143, fn. 1; see also Estate of Myers (2006) (Myers).) As explained in Estate of Linnick (1985) 171 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="214+Cal.+115"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">214 Cal. 115</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: App.2d 302, 311; accord, Estate of Yale (1931) .) 15 8 evidence that may have tended to show undue influence, he has not shown his evidence is “‘“‘of such a character... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="171+Cal.App.4th+239"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Evid. Code, § 452; In re R.V. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 239</a>

F

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.App.5th+94"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fadeeff v. State (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 94</a>

  • Guardianship of A.H.: State Farm General Insurance Co. (2020) .) In sum, we conclude that a trial court can exclude evidence as a sanction for the violation of an order to exchange witness lists ... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="211+Cal.App.4th+726"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Incorporated (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 726</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: Attaching an extrinsic document to a pleading does not constitute a judicial admission that the document supersedes or alters the trust’s express terms;

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.4th+56"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fairbanks v. Superior Court (2008) 46 Cal.4th 56</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Superior Court (2009) .) Moreover, having reviewed the legislative history surrounding the enactment of sections , including the Law Revision Commission’s 1986 report regarding the legislative changes... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="127+Cal.App.4th+823"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Falahati v. Kondo (2004) 127 Cal.App.4th 823</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Kondo (2005) , fn. 9; accord, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. [context]
  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Kondo (2005) , fn. omitted.) “‘“A judgment or order is said to be void on its face when the invalidity is apparent upon an inspection of the judgment-roll.” Citation. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.App.5th+513"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Falahati v. Kondo (2016) 13 Cal.App.5th 513</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.4th+387"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Falk Construction, Inc. (2010) 53 Cal.4th 387</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="538+U.S.+408"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell 538 U.S. 408</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.4th+468"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (1999) 24 Cal.4th 468</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.App.5th+1257"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Farrar v. Direct (2016) 9 Cal.App.5th 1257</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: Direct Commerce, Inc. (2017) –1276, fn. 3.) Robert relies on the Probate Code’s definition of “will,” which at first blush might be parsed to include a stand-alone revocation. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="49+Cal.App.5th+284"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Faulkner v. Sonoma County Junior College District (2019) 49 Cal.App.5th 284</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: San Diego Unified Port Dist. (2020) .) In particular, it “ ‘must show in what manner it can amend its complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of its pleading.’ Citation. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="190+Cal.App.4th+1280"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fazzi v. Klein (2011) 190 Cal.App.4th 1280</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: Klein (2010) (Fazzi) following Ferber in concluding that a no contest clause could not apply to a nonfrivolous action to remove a trustee for cause; Tunstall v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.App.4th+1066"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Charlton (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1066</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A judgment lien is terminated only when the creditor records an acknowledgment that the underlying judgment has been satisfied or when the creditor formally releases the lien.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="114+Cal.App.4th+411"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Feresi v. The State Bar (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 411</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: McNeil Partners (2003) -425 describing the fiduciary obligations in a partnership.) A minority shareholder may bring a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against majority shareholders as an... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="234+Cal.App.4th+1360"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Feuer v. Superior (2014) 234 Cal.App.4th 1360</a>

  • People v. Braum: Superior Court (Cahuenga’s the Spot) (2015) , which held that although civil penalties were available remedies, they were not elements of the City’s causes of action. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="89+Cal.App.4th+195"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fidelity Creditor Service, Incorporated v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A judgment may be vacated when the judgment is not enforceable or when the action to enforce it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.4th+419"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Filarsky v. Superior (2001) 28 Cal.4th 419</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Superior Court (2002) .) A prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion “shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs.” (Code Civ. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="136+Cal.App.4th+1417"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Finkbeiner v. Gavid (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1417</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.App.5th+811"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fish v. Superior (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 811</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Superior Court (2019) “‘Once the claimant establishes the preliminary facts of a psychotherapist-patient relationship, the burden of proof shifts to the opponent of the privilege’”... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.App.5th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fisher v. State (2017) 25 Cal.App.5th 1</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: State Personnel Bd. (2018) “Reversible error requires demonstration of prejudice arising from the reasonable probability the party ‘would have obtained a better outcome’ in the absence of the error’ ”... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.4th+275"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Flatt v. Superior (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Superior Court (1994) (Flatt).) These ethical duties are mandated by the California Rules of Professional Conduct. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-310(C) & (E) now rules 1..9, respectively, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="148+Cal.App.4th+581"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Flores v. Evergreen (2006) 148 Cal.App.4th 581</a>

  • Logan v. Country Oaks Partners: Evergreen at San Diego, LLC (2007) .) The issue on appeal—i.e., did the Advance Directive confer authority on Harrod to enter into an arbitration agreement on Logan’s behalf—presents a legal question. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.4th+593"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fonte v. Up (1991) 2 Cal.4th 593</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Up-Right, Inc. (1992) .) “The statute’s plain meaning controls the courts’ interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Up-Right, Inc. (1992) .) “The statute’s plain meaning controls the courts’ interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.App.4th+1889"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Foods v. Veneman (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1889</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Veneman (1996) , 1897 preponderance of the evidence standard of proof applied to revocation of food processor’s license; independent judgment standard of review applied in trial court. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.App.5th+986"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">For this reason, we also reject the applicability of Conservatorship of E.B. (2019) 45 Cal.App.5th 986</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.3d+875"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1969) 3 Cal.3d 875</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 890; Goehring v. Chapman University (2004) 121 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.App.5th+998"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Foster v. Sexton (2020) 61 Cal.App.5th 998</a>

  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Sexton (2021) .) The foregoing principles raise the question of how one properly pleads the facts necessary to state a violation of the CLRA based on a failure to disclose a material fact. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+181"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Foust v. San Jose Construction Company, Incorporated (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A court cannot perform a substantial‑evidence evidentiary review when the trial’s testimonial record (transcript or settled statement) is unavailable;

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.App.5th+703"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Francisco v. All (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 703</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.App.4th+1061"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Francisco v. Cartagena (1994) 35 Cal.App.4th 1061</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.4th+839"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Francisco v. Cobra (2005) 38 Cal.4th 839</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="214+Cal.App.4th+1520"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Francisco v. Countrywide (2012) 214 Cal.App.4th 1520</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Countrywide Financial Corp. (2013) , and Estate of Redfield (2011) 193 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="193+Cal.App.4th+1526"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Francisco v. Countrywide (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1526</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: App.4th 1520, 1527, and Estate of Redfield (2011) , each of which relies on Torrey Pines. 13 Indeed, the majority’s failure to impose the actual litigation requirement was a centerpiece of the Torrey... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="77+Cal.App.4th+1302"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Francisco v. Sainez (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 1302</a>

  • People v. Braum: Sainez (2000) –1322 . . . (Sainez).) After reviewing those considerations, the high court held that the forfeiture of Bajakajian’s currency constituted an ‘excessive fine’ barred by the Eighth Amendme... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.4th+1094"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Francois v. Goel (2004) 35 Cal.4th 1094</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Goel (2005) ; see also id. at pp. 1100-1101, 1103, 1105.) Third, the trial court issued the order for publication ex parte. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.App.4th+835"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Friedland v. City (1997) 62 Cal.App.4th 835</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.App.4th+1800"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fuentes v. Berry (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1800</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Berry (1995) .) In many instances the dismissal “may be an implicit concession that the dismissing party cannot maintain the action and may constitute a decision on the merits.” (Eells v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.4th+805"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fukuda v. City (1998) 20 Cal.4th 805</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: City of Angels (1999) & fn. 10 (Fukuda).) And, third, the purpose of independent judgment review is to protect individual liberty. (Id. at p. 816, fn. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="152+Cal.App.4th+1254"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Fund v. Fulkerson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1254</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="238+F.3d+891"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">238 F.3d 891</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.App.5th+959"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Funsten v. Wells (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 959</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: A. (2016) safe harbor procedure no longer available after statutory revisions in 2010.) 14 would violate the trust’s no contest clause, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Id. at pp. 1199–1200. [context]

G

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="113+Cal.App.4th+1331"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Galdjie v. Darwish (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1331</a>

  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Darwish (2003) .) Rather, a trust is “ ‘a fiduciary relationship with respect to property.’ ” (Moeller v. [context]
  • People v. Braum: Darwish (2003) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.2d+362"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">31 Cal.2d 362</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.2d+319"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">27 Cal.2d 319</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.2d+393"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">20 Cal.2d 393</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.2d+645"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">21 Cal.2d 645</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.2d+570"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">19 Cal.2d 570</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="127+Cal.App.4th+882"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gardenhire v. Superior (2004) 127 Cal.App.4th 882</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="243+Cal.App.4th+470"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Garibotti v. Hinkle (2014) 243 Cal.App.4th 470</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="132+Cal.App.4th+253"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Garrison v. Superior (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 253</a>

  • Logan v. Country Oaks Partners: Superior Court (2005) (Garrison), Country Oaks argues that because the Advance Directive expressly authorized Harrod to make health care decisions, including “choosing . . . health care facilities... [context]
  • Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management: Superior Court (2005) , the court also found that an agreement to arbitrate was a health care decision. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="22+Cal.App.5th+346"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gassner v. Stasa (2017) 22 Cal.App.5th 346</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Stasa (2018) 30 .) Hence, “a motion to vacate a judgment void on its face is not subject to a claim of laches.” (Falahati v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="175+Cal.App.4th+128"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gdowski v. Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.3d+270"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Geiler v. Commission (1972) 10 Cal.3d 270</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.App.4th+1294"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gentis v. Safeguard (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1294</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Safeguard Business Systems, Inc. (1998) “arguments, including 3 insufficiency of the evidence, cannot be raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing”.) Third... [context]
  • Robertson v. Saadat: Safeguard Business Systems, Inc. (1998) “California courts are not bound by decisions in other jurisdictions”.) Zhu also is not persuasive. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="68+Cal.2d+864"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">68 Cal.2d 864</a>

  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 904 “ ‘mere lapse of time, other than that prescribed by statutes of limitations, does not bar relief’ ”.) Any contrary holding would unravel the Legislature’s reasoned... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="107+Cal.App.4th+951"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Germino v. Hillyer (2002) 107 Cal.App.4th 951</a>

  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: Hillyer (2003) surveying cases.) In fact, Meiri expressly abandoned her initial challenges to the notice’s adequacy below, and has not sought to excuse her late filing. 13 amendments to the statute... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="418+U.S.+323"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">418 U.S. 323</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) ). Going further back in time, “the requirement in civil actions of more than a preponderance of the evidence was first applied in equity to claims which experience had shown... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.4th+791"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ghirardo v. Antonioli (1993) 8 Cal.4th 791</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="171+Cal.App.4th+1586"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Giammarrusco v. Simon (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1586</a>

  • Packard v. Packard: Simon (2009) (Giammarrusco); Dae v. [context]
  • Wilkin v. Nelson: App.4th 1262, 1272.) Reformation of a will involves the exercise of the court’s equitable powers. (Giammarrusco v. Simon (2009) ; Ike, supra, 61 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="69+Cal.App.5th+447"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Giammarrusco v. Simon (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 447</a>

  • Packard v. Packard: Traver (2021) (Dae) “Whether there has been a contest within the meaning of a particular no contest clause depends upon the individual circumstances of the case... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="83+Cal.App.4th+300"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Giest v. Sequoia (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 300</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="186+Cal.App.4th+444"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gilb v. Chiang (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 444</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Chiang (2010) .) However, the power to grant declaratory relief 'does not purport to confer upon courts the authority to control administrative discretion.' (Zetterberg v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Chiang (2010) .) However, the power to grant declaratory relief 'does not purport to confer upon courts the authority to control administrative discretion.' (Zetterberg v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="244+Cal.App.4th+1336"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gilkyson v. Disney (2014) 244 Cal.App.4th 1336</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.2d+520"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">61 Cal.2d 520</a>

  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524, fn. 2 “an opinion is not authority for a proposition not therein considered”.) As a result, neither decision explicitly addressed the patient’s lack of reasonable acc... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.App.4th+1378"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Goldberg v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1378</a>

  • Conservatorship of You Wei Dong: A court possesses broad discretion to decide which settlement expenses are reasonable and the amount to be reimbursed, and may allocate reimbursement in any manner it deems appropriate.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="160+Cal.App.4th+255"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Goldman v. Simpson (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 255</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: In a judgment‑renewal proceeding, a judgment debtor may assert exactly the same defenses that are available in an independent action on the judgment.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+845"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Goldstein v. Barak (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 845</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Barak Construction (2008) , citation omitted.) Although there is no dispute about that basic point, the parties take opposite positions on the standard governing the court’s exercise of discretion in... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="135+Cal.+666"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">135 Cal. 666</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.5th+1014"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Goles v. Sawhney (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1014</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Sawhney (2016) , fn. 3 “A single cause of action by a shareholder can give rise to derivative claims, individual claims, or both.”; Denevi v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="173+Cal.App.4th+508"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gomez v. Lincare (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 508</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Lincare, Inc. (2009) “ ‘A cause of action for breach of implied contract has 28 the same elements as does a cause of action for breach of contract, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.2d+91"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">38 Cal.2d 91</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="129+Cal.App.4th+1458"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gonsalves v. Hodgson (2004) 129 Cal.App.4th 1458</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.3d+500"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gonzales v. Nork (1977) 20 Cal.3d 500</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Nork (1978) 20 Cal.3d 500, 507 “as long as there exists ‘a reasonable or even fairly debatable justification . . . for the trial court’s decision, such action will not be . . . set aside’ ”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.3d+335"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335 [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="116+Cal.App.4th+1010"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Goodman v. Lozano (2003) 116 Cal.App.4th 1010</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Superior Court (2004) “the propriety or amount of an attorney fees award is reviewed using the abuse of discretion standard”.) However, the standard may change depending on the particular issue under... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.App.4th+1667"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Goodman v. Zimmerman (1993) 25 Cal.App.4th 1667</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: Zimmerman (1994) , which never examined whether section 6100.5(a)(2) requires a finding of a mental health disorder. (See Goodman, at pp. 1674–1678.) Third... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.App.4th+1137"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gould v. Maryland (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: 8 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) “The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.” (Ibid.) Neither the trial court nor this court will rewrite the complaint. (Gould v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="139+Cal.App.4th+1423"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Grady v. Superior (2005) 139 Cal.App.4th 1423</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: Superior Court (2006) .)” Because the Legislature included express provisions allowing for personal liability for attorneys’ fees and costs in sections 2622.5, subdivision (a), 11003, subdivision (a), [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.App.5th+428"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Grafilo v. Cohanshohet (2018) 32 Cal.App.5th 428</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="165+Cal.App.4th+841"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Grafilo v. Cohanshohet (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 841</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="226+Cal.App.4th+594"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Graham v. Bank (2013) 226 Cal.App.4th 594</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.App.4th+248"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Graham v. Lenzi (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 248</a>

  • Packard v. Packard: Lenzi (1995) [context]
  • Barefoot v. Jennings: Lenzi (1995) .) Similarly, where a person fraudulently induces a settlor to amend a trust so that it transfers all of the settlor’s estate to that person and disinherits all prior beneficiaries... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="142+Cal.App.4th+1260"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Grassilli v. Barr (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1260</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: B. There Are No Comparable Civil Penalty Provisions. We skip next to the third guidepost, which directs us to “consider ‘the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="70+Cal.App.5th+225"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gray v. Dignity (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 225</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="192+Cal.App.4th+441"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Green v. Laibco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 441</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.3d+543"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Greenbaum v. State (1986) 43 Cal.3d 543</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 549.) In 15 In re BRADSHAW Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. particular, “the hearing court is best suited to resolving credibility questions... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.4th+1028"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Greener v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (1992) 6 Cal.4th 1028</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="184+Cal.App.4th+451"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Greener v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 451</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Superior Court (Mitchell) (2010) .) “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction means the entire absence of power to hear or determine a case; i.e., an absence of authority over the subject matter. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+F.2d+321"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">55 F.2d 321</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="59+F.2d+529"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">59 F.2d 529</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.App.5th+561"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gregge v. Hugill (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 561</a>

  • Dunlap v. Mayer: Hugill (2016) .) The court must exercise its discretion within the “ ‘ “limitations of legal principles governing the subject of its action.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 568. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.3d+596"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gregory v. McDonald (1975) 17 Cal.3d 596</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Code, § 452, subds. (c), (d).) 28 in “every literal category of elder abuse with his parents.” None of these statements can rescue Kenton’s complaint. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="74+Cal.App.5th+412"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Greif v. Sanin (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 412</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Sanin (2022) .) Of course, where a party trying to avoid a contract is able to show the other party “fostered or encouraged” the mistake, the party may be able to prevail on the ground of fraud. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="191+Cal.App.4th+977"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Grewal v. Jammu (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 977</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Jammu (2011) ), we conclude that Carol demonstrated that the complaint was legally sufficient in alleging favorable termination.8 We turn next to whether Carol made an evidentiary showing that she pre... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="220+Cal.App.4th+586"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Griffith v. Pajaro (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 586</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.4th+688"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Griset v. Fair (2000) 25 Cal.4th 688</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) “A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties”.) As the Court of Appeal noted, writ review may be appropriate in other circumstances. (S. [context]
  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) .) “A judgment is the final determination of the 5 Amicus Public Counsel filed in this case a request for judicial notice of three documents: A declaration filed b... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.4th+1100"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Grosset v. Wenaas (2006) 42 Cal.4th 1100</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Wenaas (2008) (Grosset)) and “is the ultimate beneficiary of such a derivative suit” (Patrick v. [context]
  • Turner v. Victoria: Wenaas (2008) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="167+Cal.App.4th+995"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Grosset v. Wenaas (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.App.4th+1313"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Grothe v. Cortlandt (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1313</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="90+Cal.App.4th+1106"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Group v. United (2000) 90 Cal.App.4th 1106</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="120+Cal.App.4th+690"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Guardianship of Ariana K. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 690</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: App.4th 451, 458.) “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction means the entire absence of power to hear or determine a case; i.e., an absence of authority over the subject matter. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="104+Cal.App.4th+156"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Guillemin v. Stein (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Stein (2002) it was an abuse of discretion to find a legal argument frivolous when it was at least “arguable”; Reis v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="126+Cal.App.4th+809"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Guillemin v. Stein (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 809</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.5th+503"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gund v. County (2020) 10 Cal.5th 503</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.5th+1234"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gutierrez v. Carmax (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234</a>

  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) (Gutierrez), this court discussed earlier cases and concluded that a cause of action under the CLRA “must be stated with reasonable particularity... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.4th+317"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Guz v. Bechtel (1999) 24 Cal.4th 317</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) .) “A defendant moving for summary judgment must show ‘that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="83+Cal.App.4th+759"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gwinn v. Kothari (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 759</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Kothari (2000) .) A quasi in rem action is brought against someone personally, but the real objective is to deal with particular property. (People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="90+Cal.App.4th+483"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gwinn v. Kothari (2000) 90 Cal.App.4th 483</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Pollard (2001) -490.) Probate proceedings are proceedings in rem. [context]

H

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.App.5th+270"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hacker v. Homeward Residential (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270</a>

  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Standard of review We review an order sustaining a demurrer de novo. (Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) .) In doing so, “we accept the truth of material facts properly pleaded in the operati... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="68+Cal.App.5th+1003"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Haggerty v. Thornton (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1003</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="184+Cal.+426"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">184 Cal. 426</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="153+Cal.App.4th+863"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Haley v. Casa (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 863</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Casa Del Rey Homeowners Association (2007) recognizing that time 23 “Under the relation-back doctrine, an amendment relates back to the original complaint if the amendment (1) rests on the same genera... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.+373"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">198 Cal. 373</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Ct. (1926) -378, 383 (Hall) affirming injunction barring landowner Imperial County judges from presiding over an action for damages against a water company whose interests were purchased by the Distri... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Ct. (1926) -378, 383 (Hall) affirming injunction barring landowner Imperial County judges from presiding over an action for damages against a water company whose interests were purchased by the Distri... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.App.5th+1062"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Halyard Health, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 1062</a>

  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: Kimberly-Clark Corp. (2019) .) Nor can the mother undo her lifelong California contacts by moving to a new state. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="202+Cal.+36"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">202 Cal. 36</a>

  • Breslin v. Breslin: Cleese (1927) .) And forfeiture is an especially harsh result here: It elevates the probate court’s power to order mediation (§ 17206) over myriad provisions of the Probate Code, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="114+Cal.App.4th+618"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hansen v. Hansen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 618</a>

  • Donkin v. Donkin: Hansen (2003) “a conservator, executor, or personal representative of a decedent’s estate who is unlicensed to practice 23 cannot be said when, as here... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="357+U.S.+235"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">357 U.S. 235</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.4th+706"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Haraguchi v. Superior (2006) 43 Cal.4th 706</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Superior Court (2008) abuse of discretion standard applies where trial court is in better position to “evaluate the consequences of a potential conflict of interest in light of the entirety of a case”... [context]
  • Estate of El Wardani: Superior Court (2008) −712.) Thus, we independently construe the meaning of “resident” in section 8402, subdivision (a)(4). [context]
  • Capra v. Capra: Superior Court (2008) -712; People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) .) The trial court’s ‘application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.’ (Haraguchi, supra... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.4th+737"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Haraguchi v. Superior (2006) 43 Cal.4th 737</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Superior Court (2008) -712; People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) .) The trial court’s ‘application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.’ (Haraguchi, supra... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="110+Cal.App.4th+1333"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harnedy v. Whitty (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1333</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Whitty (2003) -1345.) “Fundamental jurisdiction is, at its core, authority over both the subject matter and the parties.” (People v. [context]
  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Whitty (2003) ; In re Michael R. (2006) 137 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.5th+771"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harnedy v. Whitty (2017) 4 Cal.5th 771</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Chavez (2018) .) Any ruling issued by a court that lacks fundamental jurisdiction is void. (Ibid.) Fundamental 8 jurisdiction is statewide and not specific to any one county. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="137+Cal.App.4th+126"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harnedy v. Whitty (2005) 137 Cal.App.4th 126</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: App.4th 1333, 1345; In re Michael R. (2006) .) He also did not raise his statutory contentions below. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="166+Cal.App.4th+10"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 10</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: S. residents and deleted the “bona fide” modifier, it did nothing to abrogate the long line of cases construing “resident” to mean “domicile.” “When a statute has been construed by judicial decision.. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="59+Cal.4th+772"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harris v. Pac (2012) 59 Cal.4th 772</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="116+Cal.App.4th+1084"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harrison v. Welch (2003) 116 Cal.App.4th 1084</a>

  • Pearce v. Briggs: Welch (2004) .) “The Pearce Parties did not carry their burden of proving seisin or possession in the five-year period before they filed the original petition in April 2011. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="75+Cal.App.4th+860"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harustak v. Wilkins (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 860</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.5th 1025, the court observed that the 2010 amendments to section 2030 had placed limitations on trial court discretion with regard to fees, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="84+Cal.App.4th+208"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Harustak v. Wilkins (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 208</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: Wilkins (2000) .) That said, “ ‘where the ruling that is the subject of appeal turns on the trial court’s determination of disputed facts, the appropriate standard of review on appeal is “sufficiency... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="90+Cal.App.4th+864"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Haskett v. Villas (2000) 90 Cal.App.4th 864</a>

  • People v. Braum: Villas at Desert Falls (2001) –878 (Haskett).) 40 3. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="84+Cal.App.4th+153"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hassoldt v. Patrick Media Group, Incorporated (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 153</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A trustee may bring a lawsuit over trust property in the trustee’s own name and is not required to identify or describe the trust in the pleading. The trust designation is merely optional and,

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.4th+1844"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Havlicek v. Coast (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1844</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="223+Cal.App.4th+466"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hawkins v. TACA Internat. Airlines, S.A. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 466</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: A. (2014) - 471, 474-476, 478 rejecting plaintiff’s contention she need not allege specific facts to state a cause of action against airlines for entering into underfunded contracts in violation of st... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.4th+372"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Haworth v. Superior (2009) 50 Cal.4th 372</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Superior Ct. (2010) .) We need not decide whether the trial court’s determination is reviewed independently or for substantial evidence, because the result is the same either way. (See ibid. [context]
  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Superior Court (2010) .) Accordingly, an appellate court should accept a trial court’s factual findings if they are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Boling v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="209+Cal.App.4th+256"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="124+Cal.App.4th+286"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Heaps v. Heaps (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 286</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Heaps (2004) –291, 294 “under the literal terms of the trust,” trustors “had to write a memo to themselves (or its substantive equivalent) to amend the trust”; Crook v. [context]
  • Donkin v. Donkin: Heaps (2004) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="145+Cal.App.4th+1195"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hearst v. Ganzi (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1195</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: Ganzi (2006) (Hearst), income beneficiaries of a trust sought a ruling that their proposed petition would not violate the trust’s no contest clause. [context]
  • Tubbs v. Berkowitz: Ganzi (2006) -1208 trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties where their actions were explicitly authorized by the trust.) Finally, we note that Berkowitz’s exercise of his power of appointment w... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.2d+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Helvering v. Davis 17 Cal.2d 1</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: 41 In any case, the meaning of “residue” in the context of trust and probate litigation has a readily understandable meaning as the surplus of the estate remaining after the payment of debts and the d... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="108+Cal.App.4th+441"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hermanson v. Hermanson (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 441</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: Hermanson (2003) .) However, the legislative change was based on a public policy to permit claims of fiduciary misconduct that challenge a trustee’s failure to carry out the terms of a trust. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.App.5th+270"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hernandez v. First (2018) 37 Cal.App.5th 270</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.App.5th+538"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Herrera v. Doctors (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 538</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.App.5th+172"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Herrera v. Doctors (2016) 10 Cal.App.5th 172</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.App.4th+672"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Herzog v. Law (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 672</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Fredrics (1998) ; see American Contractors, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 661; Abelleira, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 288; Conservatorship of O’Connor (1996) 48 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.2d+212"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">12 Cal.2d 212</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.2d+681"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">47 Cal.2d 681</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: All Persons, Etc. (1957) 47 Cal.2d 681, 691-693, rev'd on other grounds sub nom. in 18 We recognize that deprivation of a beneficial ownership right could potentially give rise to remedies different f... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: All Persons, Etc. (1957) 47 Cal.2d 681, 691-693, rev'd on other grounds sub nom. in 18 We recognize that deprivation of a beneficial ownership right could potentially give rise to remedies different f... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+764"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hill v. San (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 764</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: San Jose Family Housing Partners, LLC (2011) declining to take judicial notice of a document that was “not relevant to our consideration of the issues raised on appeal”; Mangini v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="244+Cal.App.4th+1281"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hill v. Superior (2014) 244 Cal.App.4th 1281</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Superior Court (2016) 24 Probate Code section 859 penalties are not equivalent to punitive damages; Estate of Ashlock (2020) 45 Cal. [context]
  • Keading v. Keading: Superior Court (2016) , the court noted that “the last alternative of section 859 allows for double damages without any requirement that petitioners show any aggravated misconduct—only financial elder... [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: Superior Court (2016) –1284.) We used the phrase ourselves in Ashlock I. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="439+U.S.+572"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">439 U.S. 572</a>

  • In re Brace: Hisquierdo (1979) .) Although California has always been a community property state, “for most of the state’s history California’s marital property law has contained strong elements of a separate prop... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="73+Cal.App.4th+76"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hobbs v. Weiss (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 76</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Weiss (1999) 15 ), and the “safeguards” embodied in the Attachment Law are designed to rectify due process defects identified in Randone. (Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="211+Cal.App.4th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hodjat v. State (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Co. (2012) (Hodjat) “appellant is required to not only cite to valid legal authority, but also explain how it applies in his case”.) Because appellants have not identified any civil penalty that could... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="455+U.S.+489"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hoffman Est. 455 U.S. 489</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="148+Cal.App.4th+259"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hogan v. Country (2006) 148 Cal.App.4th 259</a>

  • Logan v. Country Oaks Partners: Country Villa Health Services (2007) followed Garrison, opining Garrison was “well reasoned.” In Young v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="220+Cal.App.4th+1122"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hogan v. Country (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1122</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="207+Cal.App.4th+513"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hoitt v. Department (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 513</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Department of Rehabilitation (2012) administrative mandamus; Munroe, at p. 1301 traditional mandamus.) V. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.App.5th+404"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: City of San Diego (2019) -420 an “appellant cannot bury a substantive legal argument in a footnote and hope to avoid waiver of that argument”.) 16 example... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="74+Cal.App.4th+442"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Holmes v. Lerner (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 442</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.2d+750"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">61 Cal.2d 750</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="148+Cal.App.4th+696"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Home v. State (2006) 148 Cal.App.4th 696</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="512+U.S.+415"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg 512 U.S. 415</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Oberg (1994) .) On the less than fully developed record presented in summary attachment proceedings, it would pose too great a risk of arbitrary deprivation if trial courts were charged with projectin... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.App.5th+57"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hood v. Gonzales (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 57</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: Gonzales (2019) –73 describing interpleader actions.) II. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.4th+339"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hospitals v. Superior (2013) 61 Cal.4th 339</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.App.5th+36"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hospitals v. Superior (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 36</a>

  • People v. Washington: Superior Court (Vasquez) (2018) .) 7 An alleged SVP is entitled to a jury trial, but only upon a demand by the alleged SVP or his or her attorney. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.2d+366"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">11 Cal.2d 366</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Bank of America, 11 Cal.2d 366, 371–373; Purinton v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="72+Cal.App.4th+621"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Howard v. Owens (1998) 72 Cal.App.4th 621</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: Owens Corning (1999) .) Robert’s evidence also left room for the trial court to find it insufficient. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="110+Cal.+513"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">110 Cal. 513</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Co. (1895) -522 objection as to the sufficiency of a witness’s knowledge “goes more to the weight of the evidence than its admissibility”; People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.4th+863"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hsu v. Abbara (1994) 9 Cal.4th 863</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Abbara (1995) (Hsu).) “If neither party achieves a complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine which party prevailed on the contract or whe... [context]
  • Jones v. Goodman: Abbara (1995) “It is now settled that a party is entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 ‘even when the party prevails on grounds the contract is inapplicable, invalid, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="125+Cal.App.4th+1586"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hudis v. Crawford (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1586</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Crawford (2005) -1592.) And “a dismissal resulting from negotiation, settlement or agreement is generally not deemed a favorable termination of the proceedings. Citations.” (Villa v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="468+U.S.+517"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">468 U.S. 517</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Code, § 5054.) Visitor safety is likewise an appropriate concern of CDCR. (See, e.g., §§ 3170, subds. (a), (b), (d)(1); 3176; 3177, subd. (b)(1)(D); 3262; 3263... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="522+U.S.+93"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">522 U.S. 93</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.4th+763"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hughes v. Board (1997) 17 Cal.4th 763</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Board of Architectural Examiners (1998) citing Ettinger for its application of the clear and convincing standard of proof in professional license revocation proceedings; Kapelus v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.4th+1035"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hughes v. Pair (2008) 46 Cal.4th 1035</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Pair (2009) ; Kavanaugh, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 919.) Because the court found Kenton took property by committing elder financial abuse within the meaning of section 15610.30, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="212+Cal.+614"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">212 Cal. 614</a>

  • In re Brace: Lawson (1931) (Hulse), this court reached a different conclusion in a dispute between a wife and her husband’s creditor over property that the spouses had acquired during marriage as joint tenants. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.+173"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">5 Cal. 173</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Crane (1855) a change that “does not vary the meaning, the nature, or subject matter, of the contract is immaterial”.) We review the court’s factual findings to determine if they are supported by subs... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="121+Cal.App.4th+956"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Huscher v. Wells (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 956</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Wells Fargo Bank (2004) , fn. 5.) This was the principle that section 15402 sought to codify. (Cal. [context]
  • Haggerty v. Thornton: Wells Fargo Bank (2004) (Huscher).) “We presume the change made was to require a statement of explicit exclusivity and thereby avoid the problems of interpretation inherent in determining issues of im... [context]
  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: Wells Fargo Bank (2004) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.App.5th+937"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hutcheson v. Eskaton (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 937</a>

  • Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management: Eskaton FountainWood Lodge (2017) (Hutcheson). We conclude that Hutcheson and other cases on which Silverado relies are distinguishable on the facts and relevant legal principles. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.App.4th+791"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hutchinson v. City of Los Angeles (1992) 17 Cal.App.4th 791</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Traditional Versus Administrative Mandamus In addition to other arguments, respondent contends that a writ of traditional mandate is inappropriate because respondent’s duty was not ministerial. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.5th+1057"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hutton v. Hafif (2016) 2 Cal.5th 1057</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) (Park).) Thus, “only a cause of action that satisfies both prongs of the anti-SLAPP statute— i.e., [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Board of Trustees of California State University (2017) .) 2. [context]

I

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="213+Cal.App.4th+189"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ian J. v. Peter M. (2012) 213 Cal.App.4th 189</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="158+Cal.+474"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Id., at p. 637, italics added; see also Title Ins. and Trust Co. v. Ingersoll 158 Cal. 474</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: All questions as to preponderance and conflict of evidence are for the trial court.” (Id., at p. 637, italics added; see also Title Ins. and Trust Co. v. Ingersoll (1910) ; Couts v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.App.4th+51"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ike v. Doolittle (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 51</a>

  • Packard v. Packard: Doolittle (1998) , italics omitted.) “The purpose of reformation is to carry out the wishes of the testator, and the remedy reflects no judgment other than a preference for disposition pursuant to the... [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Doolittle (1998) [context]
  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Doolittle (1998) (Ike).) The clear and convincing standard, however, “applies only at the trial level. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.2d+587"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">28 Cal.2d 587</a>

  • In re Brace: App.3d at p. 1015 “We conclude the community property presumption, not the form-of-the-title presumption, should apply in cases arising under former section 229.”; In re Abdale’s Estate (1946) 28 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="135+Cal.App.4th+1528"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Alexis (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1528</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: App.4th 1220, 1229; In re Baby Girl M. (2006) ; In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="84+Cal.App.4th+424"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Aljamie (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 424</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Code, § 1514, subd. (b).) In making such determinations, California courts give special weight to a child’s wishes, assuming the child can form an intelligent preference. (See In re Aljamie D. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="119+Cal.App.4th+522"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Andy (2003) 119 Cal.App.4th 522</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.3d+908"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Angelia (1980) 28 Cal.3d 908</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Code, § 115.) This standard “ ‘simply requires the trier of fact “to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” ’ ” (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.4th+398"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Angelia (1993) 8 Cal.4th 398</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: sufficiency of the evidence in the light of that rule, it will not disturb the finding of the trial court to the effect that the deed is a mortgage, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="108+Cal.App.4th+903"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Angelique (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 903</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="94+Cal.App.4th+573"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Angelique (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 573</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="108+Cal.App.4th+962"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Baby Girl (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 962</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.4th+751"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Baycol Cases (2009) 51 Cal.4th 751</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Even assuming the August 16, 2019 order was appealable, we do not have jurisdiction to review it in this appeal. (See In re Baycol Cases I & II (2011) , fn. 8 “if an order is appealable... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.5th+903"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Brace (2019) 9 Cal.5th 903</a>

  • Pearce v. Briggs: King (1950) 36 Cal.2d 342, 345-347 “property acquired under a joint tenancy deed may be shown to be actually community property or the separate property of one spouse according to the intention, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="908+F.3d+531"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">908 F.3d 531</a>

  • In re Brace: The Braces acquired both properties with community funds and took title to each property as “ ‘husband and wife as joint tenants.’ ” (In re Brace (9th Cir. 2018) 908 F.3d 531... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+Cal.4th+683"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Cabrera (2011) 55 Cal.4th 683</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Code, § 5058, subd. (a); In re Cabrera (2012) (Cabrera).) The regulations at issue, sections , were promulgated pursuant to that authority. (See “Note” following § 3000... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="7+Cal.App.4th+1240"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Candida (1991) 7 Cal.App.4th 1240</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: The issue was thus forfeited. (In re Candida S. (1992) , fn. 8 meaningful appellate review can only occur if a party raises a potential conflict of interest, the trial court hears the matter... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="128+Cal.App.4th+1051"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Carl (2004) 128 Cal.App.4th 1051</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: In re Carl R. (2005) appointment of court- appointed special advocate for dependent child necessarily ends when child is adopted.) Because Jacqueline and Michael are adults... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.4th+145"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Charlisse (2007) 45 Cal.4th 145</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Superior Court (2008) -712; People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) .) The trial court’s ‘application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.’ (Haraguchi, supra... [context]
  • Doe v. Yim: App.4th 835, 843 “‘an appearance of impropriety by itself does not support a lawyer’s disqualification’”.) “‘Generally, a trial court’s decision on a disqualification motion is reviewed for abuse of d... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.4th+1441"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Christina (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1441</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: We reject the further claims that Chen and the court deprived them of other rights as beneficiaries under the Trust because they received countervailing benefits under the second GAL agreement. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="7+Cal.5th+439"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Cook (2018) 7 Cal.5th 439</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: Rather, “a motion . . . is ancillary to an on-going action and ‘ “ ‘implies the pendency of a suit between the parties.’ ” ’ ” (In re Cook (2019) ; see Code Civ. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="30+Cal.3d+870"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Cummings (1981) 30 Cal.3d 870</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Family visitation is a privilege, not a right. (§ 3177, subd. (b); see In re Cummings (1982) 30 Cal.3d 870 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.5th+583"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re D.R. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 583</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: R. (2019) .) “‘“What is determinative is whether the defendant takes a part in the particular action which in some manner recognizes the authority of the court to proceed.’” Citations. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="115+Cal.App.4th+903"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Daniel (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 903</a>

  • In re Z.O.: As Division One of our court found some years ago, a parent’s hospitalization for severe mental illness can serve as a basis for finding any procedural error in appointing a GAL harmless beyond a reas... [context]
  • In re Samuel A.: The Appointment of a Guardian ad Litem for Patricia Was Not Harmless Relying on In re James F., supra, and In re Daniel S. (2004) , the Department alternatively argues that any error in appointing a g... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.5th+1112"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Dezi (2023) 16 Cal.5th 1112</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: Thus, in Herren’s view, both the law and the terms of the trust call for Susannah to “first to carry the burden to rebut the presumption that George had capacity to engage Herren. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="79+Cal.App.5th+769"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Dezt (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 769</a>

  • In re E.L.: App.5th 214, 219: “When, however, postjudgment evidence is offered to an appellate court in support of a motion to dismiss a juvenile dependency appeal, it is ‘routinely considered’ because, [context]
  • Adoption of M.R.: App.5th at p. 360.) In some instances, father argues, recent appellate cases with similar holdings were wrongly decided. (See In re Dezi C. (2022) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="244+Cal.App.4th+1075"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Donovan (2014) 244 Cal.App.4th 1075</a>

  • M.M. v. D.V.: Citing In re Donovan L. (2016) (Donovan), the trial court concluded that because M. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="80+Cal.App.4th+1344"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344</a>

  • Conservatorship of Martha: Due process requires that parties be given notice before a court modifies its own interim order, particularly when the change concerns a matter of significance.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="120+Cal.+634"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Estate of [Decedent] 120 Cal. 634</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: These circumstances are similar to In re Estate of Weed (1898) (Weed), in that Janine lost her resident and domicile status when she moved to Mexico in 2014... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="63+Cal.+458"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Estate of [Decedent] 63 Cal. 458</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: Proc., § 1369; Stats. 1877, ch. 585, § 3; see In re Estate of Beech (1883) ; In re Estate of Martin (1912) .), the statute was repealed and recodified as former section 420 of the Probate Code without... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="163+Cal.+440"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Estate of [Decedent] 163 Cal. 440</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: Proc., § 1369; Stats. 1877, ch. 585, § 3; see In re Estate of Beech (1883) ; In re Estate of Martin (1912) .), the statute was repealed and recodified as former section 420 of the Probate Code without... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="142+Cal.+125"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Estate of [Decedent] 142 Cal. 125</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: For example, California residency was established in In re Estate of Gordon (1904) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="104+Cal.+623"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Estate of [Decedent] 104 Cal. 623</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: 13 property in Massachusetts, came to California intending to make it his permanent home, and “resided here continuously for some six years past” before his sister’s death. (Id. at p. 128. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="124+Cal.+688"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Estate of [Decedent] 124 Cal. 688</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: 9 A contrary result was reached in In re Estate of Newman (1899) based on the procedural posture and standard of review. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="195+Cal.+699"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Estate of [Decedent] 195 Cal. 699</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: A belief may be illogical or preposterous, but it is not, therefore, evidence of insanity.” (In re Estate of Perkins (1925) (Perkins).) “The presumption is always that a person is sane... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="192+Cal.+384"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Estate of [Decedent] 192 Cal. 384</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: 10 Kitchen (1923) .) No contest clauses were also strictly construed. (Kitchen, at pp. 389–390.) The Legislature began codifying the law concerning no contest clauses in 1989. (Donkin, supra, 58 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="171+Cal.+553"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Estate of [Decedent] 171 Cal. 553</a>

  • Sachs v. Sachs: As the court stated, “The existence of David’s record, in and of itself is highly persuasive . . . .” In fact, keeping such a record would seem to have no purpose other than to equalize distributions... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.4th+610"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Ethan (2010) 54 Cal.4th 610</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.3d+889"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Gandolfo (1983) 36 Cal.3d 889</a>

  • Conservatorship of K.P.: Although habeas corpus relief may be appropriate “in extraordinary circumstances” (In re Gandolfo (1984) 36 Cal.3d 889 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.4th+620"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re George (2003) 33 Cal.4th 620</a>

  • In re Z.O.: 8 Any “error in the procedure used to appoint a guardian ad litem for a parent in a dependency proceeding is trial error that is amenable to harmless error analysis rather than a structural defect req... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+Cal.4th+393"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Greg (2011) 55 Cal.4th 393</a>

  • People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation: The failure of the Legislature to change the law in a particular respect when the subject is generally before it and changes in other respects are made is indicative of an intent to leave the law as i... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="163+Cal.App.4th+1220"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Hailey (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1220</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: App.4th 1405, 1415; In re William B. (2008) ; In re Baby Girl M. (2006) 135 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="107+Cal.App.4th+1412"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Henry (2002) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: App.4th 962, 971; In re Luke M. (2003) ; Shade Foods, Inc. v. 15 CONSERVATORSHIP OF O. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.5th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Isaiah (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1</a>

  • In re Z.O.: C. § 1903(4) defining Indian child as ‘any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="233+Cal.App.4th+279"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Israel (2013) 233 Cal.App.4th 279</a>

  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Appealability At least one appellate court has reviewed the denial of a petition for SIJ findings as an appealable order. (In re Israel O. (2015) .) Other courts have done so through writ proceedings. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="85+Cal.App.4th+793"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Ivey (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 793</a>

  • Guardianship of A.H.: Proc., § 177.5.) If it found that the violation was willful, it could even have sanctioned it as contempt. (See generally In re Ivey (2000) .) Which ties into the fifth factor: The trial court’s form... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="159+Cal.App.4th+1010"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re J.L. (2007) 159 Cal.App.4th 1010</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="103+Cal.App.4th+692"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Jennifer (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 692</a>

  • Adoption of M.R.: Code, §§ 224..6 apply to an Indian child custody proceeding), and courts have made clear it is error for a court applying the Welfare and Institutions Code to fail to determine whether ICWA applies. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="93+Cal.App.4th+1180"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Jessica (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1180</a>

  • In re Z.O.: This was error. (See In re Jessica G. (2001) “The court’s decision on this issue should be stated on the record”.) What record we do have is difficult to parse. [context]
  • In re Samuel A.: . Governing Law “In a dependency case, a parent who is mentally incompetent must appear by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court. Citations. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.4th+588"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Jesusa (2002) 32 Cal.4th 588</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Kenton’s reading disregards the word “or” that separates the clauses and offers no legal or logical basis for departing from that term’s ordinary, well settled... [context]
  • In re Samuel A.: App.3d 1, 4 court has discretion to deny attorney’s request to withdraw when withdrawal would result in an injustice or cause undue delay; see generally In re Jesusa V. [context]
  • Jones v. Goodman: rather lies within the broad discretion of the trial court. 11 “The ‘ “ordinary and popular” ’ meaning of the word ‘or’ is well settled. Citation. It has a disjunctive meaning: ‘In its ordinary sense. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.5th+236"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Jonathan (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 236</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: App.4th 340, 347.) We independently review due process claims “because ‘the ultimate determination of procedural fairness amounts to a question of law.’ ” (In re Jonathan V. (2018) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.App.4th+1544"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Joshua (1993) 24 Cal.App.4th 1544</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: App.4th 53, 60), and we decide the question of mootness on a case-by-case basis (In re Joshua C. (1994) ). Here, even if we were to find reversible error, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="239+Cal.App.4th+208"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Joshua (2014) 239 Cal.App.4th 208</a>

  • Conservatorship of Brokken: As we shall explain, that case involved different probate statutes and is limited to its facts. DISCUSSION Standard of Review Issues of statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.4th+664"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Josiah (2004) 36 Cal.4th 664</a>

  • In re E.L.: At trial, Mother’s counsel represented that Mother had no Indian ancestry, and the trial court found that ICWA did not apply. Mother argues that ICWA is a substantial right... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="102+Cal.App.4th+403"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Josiah (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 403</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: S. 102, 128.) Patricia’s right to actively participate in this dependency proceeding may not be disregarded for the sake of 9 expediency. (See In re Josiah S. (2002) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="210+Cal.App.4th+632"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re K.L. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 632</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="101+Cal.App.4th+932"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Karen (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 932</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: 19 But even if the natural parent and child presumption between Charles and Judy could be rebutted purely on public policy groundsa premise we rejectwe disagree with Shannon’s assertion that public... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.App.4th+519"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Kimberly (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: Such an order merely transfers the intended target of Patricia’s behavior from counsel to the guardian ad litem tasked with speaking with her counsel on her behalf. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.App.4th+1635"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Kristin (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.App.4th+155"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Kristin (1991) 4 Cal.App.4th 155</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.App.5th+1302"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re L.L. (2016) 13 Cal.App.5th 1302</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.4th+33"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Lemanuel (2006) 41 Cal.4th 33</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: 7 The Court of Appeal in Mary K. also examined whether counsel may waive a conservatee’s right to advisement of the right to jury trial—an issue not raised in this appeal. (See Mary K., supra... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="197+Cal.App.4th+1279"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Levi (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1279</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="184+Cal.App.4th+568"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Levi (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 568</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="113+Cal.App.4th+509"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Levi (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 509</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.5th+53"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re M.Z. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 53</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="72+Cal.App.4th+1288"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Margarita (1998) 72 Cal.App.4th 1288</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: App.4th at pp. 1067– 1068)’ (In re Margarita D. (1999) .) Thus, the fraud, if any, was intrinsic rather than extrinsic (see Lazzarone, supra, 181 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="114+Cal.App.4th+495"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of Baker (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 495</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.App.4th+1139"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1139</a>

  • Conservatorship of You Wei Dong: A guardian ad litem acts only as a representative of the incapacitated party with essentially ministerial duties and does not possess the authority of a general guardian or conservator to control or m...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="207+Cal.App.3d+1260"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1260</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A statement of decision must address only the principal contested issues expressly raised in the request, disclosing the court’s findings on the ultimate facts and material issues;

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="202+Cal.App.4th+1046"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1046</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: App.4th at p. 1589 italics added.) However, Stewart did not explain how the other party’s knowledge would change the result under section 1577 if failure to read a contract is neglect of a legal duty... [context]
  • Marriage of Zucker: Standard of Review In determining the voluntariness of a premarital agreement, the reviewing court accepts such factual determinations of the trial court as are supported by substantial evidence. [context]
  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: App.4th 598, 611- 612; In re Marriage of Hill & Dittmer (2011) .). 28 party prior to signing the agreement. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.4th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1999) 24 Cal.4th 1</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: App.4th at p. 1053, quoting In re Marriage of Bonds (2000) [context]
  • Marriage of Zucker: 6 Parties negotiating a premarital agreement are not presumed to be in a confidential relationship that would give rise to the fiduciary duties owed between spouses under section 721... [context]
  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: 36 is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement of the spousal support provision is sought was not represented by independent counsel at the time the agreement containing the provision is... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="191+Cal.App.4th+945"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 945</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: 25 Citations. These include the finding that the party against whom enforcement is sought had at least seven calendar days between the date the party was ‘first presented’ with the agreement and advis... [context]
  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: 33 America (2004) .) The record here does not evince any unfairness to Ginsberg and therefore does not support a finding of waiver. Moreover, even if it did... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.App.4th+842"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1992) 17 Cal.App.4th 842</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: The Van Camp approach determines the reasonable value of the community’s services, and allocates that amount to community property and the balance to separate property. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.3d+342"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1975) 17 Cal.3d 342</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Here, the trial court compared the case to In re Marriage of Dawley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 342 (Dawley), a factually similar case where the court upheld a PMA even though the wife was unwed and pregnant bef... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="139+Cal.App.4th+712"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2005) 139 Cal.App.4th 712</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Here, the trial court compared the case to In re Marriage of Dawley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 342 (Dawley), a factually similar case where the court upheld a PMA even though the wife was unwed and pregnant bef... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="212+Cal.App.4th+598"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 598</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Code, § 1550.) The version of the Family Code applicable to the validity and enforcement of premarital agreements turns on the date of execution. (In re Marriage of Melissa (2012) (Melissa). [context]
  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: The version of the statute in force at the time the parties executed the PMA governs. (In re Marriage of Melissa (2012) - 612; In re Marriage of Hill & Dittmer (2011) 202 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.4th+39"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1999) 24 Cal.4th 39</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: He raises an issue on which California law is unsettled, an uncertainty created by the timing and intent of an amendment to the Family Code effective 2002 (the addition of subd. (c) to § 1612)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="195+Cal.App.4th+1062"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1062</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: He raises an issue on which California law is unsettled, an uncertainty created by the timing and intent of an amendment to the Family Code effective 2002 (the addition of subd. (c) to § 1612)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="212+Cal.App.4th+967"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 967</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 1062 (Howell), and In re Marriage of Facter (2013) (Facter). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.App.5th+849"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2018) 35 Cal.App.5th 849</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Practice Guide: Family Law (Rutter Group 2021), p. 9-78, § 9:177.4; see also In re Marriage of Miotke (2019) –861 (Miotke) noting uncertainty in the law.) Attempting to provide some clarity, we hold, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="176+Cal.App.4th+1438"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1438</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Section 4330 authorizes the trial court to order a party to pay spousal support in an amount, and for a period of time, that the court determines is just and reasonable, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="114+Cal.App.4th+572"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 572</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 1438, 1442 (Blazer).) There is no statute defining income for the purpose of determining spousal support, and this determination is left to the trial court’s discretion. (Id. at p. 1445. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="125+Cal.App.4th+1075"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 572, 575 request for modification of child and spousal support denied where income and expense declaration not current.) In In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) (Riddle), upon which Kim relies... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="105+Cal.App.4th+808"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 808</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: 40 likely income for the immediate future, as distinct from extraordinarily high or low income in the past.” (Riddle, supra, at p. 1082.) In re Marriage of Rosen (2002) ... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.App.4th+124"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 124</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: The court observed that “child support is not limited by historical spending averages but should meet the standard of living of the higher income parent,” citing In re Marriage of Chandler (1997) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+1039"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1039</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Child Support California has a strong public policy in favor of adequate child support, expressed in statutes embodying the statewide uniform child support guideline. (§§ 4050–4076... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="231+Cal.App.4th+1238"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2013) 231 Cal.App.4th 1238</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: 47 appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children.” (§ 4053, subd. (f).) The statewide uniform guideline under section 4055 determines chi... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="94+Cal.App.4th+175"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 175</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 1238, 1245.) The term “guideline” is a misnomer because the amount generated by the guideline formula is presumptively correct. (In re Marriage of Hubner (2001) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="92+Cal.App.4th+269"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th at p. 129.) “In the case of wealthy parents . . . the well-established principle is that the ‘child’s need is measured by the parents’ current station in life.’ Citations. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="226+Cal.App.4th+1303"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2013) 226 Cal.App.4th 1303</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th at pp. 1046–1047.) In reviewing a child support order, however, “‘we are mindful that “determination of a child support obligation is a highly regulated area of the law... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.App.5th+939"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 939</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Spousal Support There are two distinct types of spousal support under California law, based on the timing and the purpose of the award. (In re Marriage of Mendoza & Cuellar (2017) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="120+Cal.App.4th+1317"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1317</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.5th 939, 942.) Temporary spousal support, awarded under section 3600, is intended to maintain the living conditions and standards of the parties as closely as possible to the status quo... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="7+Cal.App.4th+1926"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1991) 7 Cal.App.4th 1926</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 1317, 1328.) In contrast, permanent spousal support is intended to provide financial assistance as determined by the financial circumstances of the parties after their dissolution... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.App.5th+83"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2018) 32 Cal.App.5th 83</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: In particular, section 4330 authorizes the trial court to order a party to pay spousal support in an amount, and for a period of time, that the court determines is just and reasonable... [context]
  • Gomez v. Smith: 10 resolved in support of the determination of the trial court decision.” ’ ” (In re Marriage of Ciprari (2019) -94.) II Substantial Evidence Supports The Finding Louise Expected An Inheritance The tr... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="7+Cal.App.5th+262"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 262</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: But the court must exercise its discretion within legal principles, 53 taking into consideration the applicable circumstances of the parties as set forth in section 4320, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="225+Cal.App.4th+478"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2013) 225 Cal.App.4th 478</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th at p. 1048.) “‘The reason for 54 the change of circumstances rule is to preclude relitigation of the same facts’ and to bring finality to determinations concerning financial support. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="119+Cal.App.4th+546"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2003) 119 Cal.App.4th 546</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th at p. 1054.) “The ultimate determination of whether the individual facts of the case warrant modification of support is within the discretion of the trial court. Citation. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.App.4th+978"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 978</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 546, 556.) “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court modifies a support order without substantial evidence of a material change of circumstances.” (In re Marriage of McCann (1996) (McCann). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="92+Cal.App.4th+1009"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1009</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th at p. 982.) “Each case stands or falls on its own facts, but the overriding issue is whether a change has affected either party’s financial status.” (In re Marriage of Laudeman (2001) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="191+Cal.App.4th+627"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 627</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 1009, 1015.) An order modifying or terminating spousal support generally may be made retroactive only to the date of filing the OSC or notice of motion to modify or terminate. (§ 3653, subd. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="193+Cal.App.4th+278"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 278</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.5th 340, 350–351.) While “need” is irrelevant, the court must take into consideration “all evidence concerning the parties’ incomes, assets, and liabilities. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="64+Cal.App.5th+218"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 218</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 278, 291; In re Marriage of Pearson (2018) 21 .) Unless sanctions are scaled, they might discourage the economically weaker party from pursuing actions. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="172+Cal.App.4th+1205"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1205</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: The trial court’s ruling can be set aside “only if, considering all of the evidence viewed most favorably in its support and indulging all reasonable inferences in its favor... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="161+Cal.App.4th+1068"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1068</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.5th at p. 347.) Trial courts have no discretion, however, to assess section 271 sanctions without evidence of the statutory factual predicate, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="202+Cal.App.4th+626"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 626</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: 65 1. Sections Under sections , the trial court may make a need-based award of attorney fees and costs where the making of the award and its amount are just and reasonable given the relative circumsta... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.App.5th+1025"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1025</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.5th at p. 269.) As explained in In re Marriage of Morton (2018) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.App.5th+267"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2016) 8 Cal.App.5th 267</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.5th at pp. 111–112.) We review a trial court’s award of attorney fees (§§ 2030, 2032) and sanctions (§ 271) for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Schleich (2017) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="134+Cal.App.4th+43"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 43</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.5th 267, 276.) “In exercising its discretion the trial court must follow established legal principles and base its findings on substantial evidence.” (In re Marriage of Schmir (2005) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="59+Cal.App.4th+877"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 877</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: In In re Marriage of O’Connor (1997) , there was no abuse of discretion in awarding husband a total of $700,000 fees even where husband had $2 million in assets and wife had $40 million in assets. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="224+Cal.App.4th+1441"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2013) 224 Cal.App.4th 1441</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: App.4th at p. 49, italics added; accord, In re Marriage of Metzger (2014) .) Here, Christine and the Minors analogize Christine to the guardian ad litem in Scruton, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="22+Cal.App.4th+265"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1993) 22 Cal.App.4th 265</a>

  • Welch v. Welch: The court also 8 At the time of Miller, divorce proceedings in California involved first issuing an interlocutory judgment declaring that an innocent spouse was entitled to dissolution... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="243+Cal.App.4th+923"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2014) 243 Cal.App.4th 923</a>

  • Welch v. Welch: While the existence of social security benefits might be assumed, it is of no moment as federal law “bars Social Security benefits from being characterized as community property... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="101+Cal.App.4th+1415"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1415</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: Code, § 244.) 15 at p. 402; see also In re Marriage of Amezquita & Archuleta (2002) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.App.5th+830"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2017) 21 Cal.App.5th 830</a>

  • Guardianship of A.H.: Department of Transportation (2020) .) Section 217, however, applies only “at a hearing on any order to show cause or notice of motion brought pursuant to this code” — i.e., the Family Code. (§ 217, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="203+Cal.App.4th+964"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: App.4th 1095, 1099 (Greenberg).) “In that role, the judge may reject any evidence as unworthy of credence, even uncontradicted testimony. Citation.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2012) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="225+Cal.App.4th+1172"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2013) 225 Cal.App.4th 1172</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: An adverse factual finding is a poor platform upon which to predicate reversible error.” (In re Marriage of Boswell (2014) , citing Greenberg, supra, at p. 1097. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="217+Cal.App.4th+628"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 628</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: 11 In this context, a delusion “has been defined to be the conception of a disordered mind which imagines facts to exist of which there is no evidence and the belief in which is adhered to against all... [context]
  • Conservatorship of Navarrete: established.’” (In re Marriage of Greenway (2013) .) A conservatee may overcome a petition and retain the right to decide to enter or exit a marriage as long as they have the capacity to express their... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="222+Cal.App.4th+1346"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1346</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: App.4th 628, 642.) “A person challenging the validity of a trust instrument on the grounds that the trustor lacked capacity .) Respondents do not contest Andersen’s applicability here. [context]
  • Gomez v. Smith: Lintz (2014) .) The trial court found Tammy’s incapacity argument to be inconsistent with the evidence produced at trial. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.4th+49"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2003) 33 Cal.4th 49</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: App.4th at p. 1531; see In re Marriage of Goddard (2004) “A court can lack fundamental authority over the subject matter, question presented, or party, making its judgment void, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.App.4th+711"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1991) 6 Cal.App.4th 711</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: App.4th at p. 680 order compelling arbitration in the absence of an arbitration agreement, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281, was only an act in excess of jurisdiction... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="136+Cal.App.4th+980"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 980</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: App.4th at p. 842; In re Marriage of Jackson (2006) ; Conservatorship of O’Connor, supra, 48 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.3d+337"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1979) 27 Cal.3d 337</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: The elements of fraud are misrepresentation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance on the misrepresentation, justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.5th+914"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 914</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: 29 Ginsberg correctly observes that the PMA stated that “(e) each party has been represented by and relied exclusively on independent counsel of his or her own choosing and paid for with his or her ow... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.App.4th+1218"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1993) 25 Cal.App.4th 1218</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: App.3d 1398, 1403; In re Marriage of Moschetta (1994) .) Both of these concerns are present here. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="213+Cal.App.4th+332"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 213 Cal.App.4th 332</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: 35 portions of an agreement when any of those predicates are lacking.” (Ibid.) “‘Not valid’ does not necessarily mean ‘void.’” (Safarian v. Govgassian (2020) .) Yet, as Knapp points out... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="214+Cal.App.4th+863"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 214 Cal.App.4th 863</a>

  • Marriage of Wendt and Pullen: 4 early in the proceedings, to preserve each party’s rights by ordering, if necessary based on the income and needs assessments, one party, except a governmental entity, to pay to the other party, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.App.4th+295"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1997) 61 Cal.App.4th 295</a>

  • Marriage of Wendt and Pullen: 4 early in the proceedings, to preserve each party’s rights by ordering, if necessary based on the income and needs assessments, one party, except a governmental entity, to pay to the other party, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="85+Cal.App.4th+1032"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1032</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: A default had been entered, and for the reasons just discussed, it included Bewley. “As a general rule, ‘the entry of a default terminates a defendant’s rights to take any further affirmative steps in... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+Cal.App.4th+988"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 988</a>

  • Sachs v. Sachs: We will not consider points on appeal that were not presented to the trial court. (In re Marriage of Hinman (1997) failure to raise the point in the trial court waived right to challenge on appeal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.3d+738"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1975) 17 Cal.3d 738</a>

  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: If the availability of the statutory revocation method under section 15401 depended upon whether Martin intended Diaz to be such a trust protector, we might be 7 In that event... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.3d+1130"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1989) 51 Cal.3d 1130</a>

  • Gomez v. Smith: It is clearly unproductive to deprive a trial court of the opportunity to correct such a purported defect by allowing a litigant to raise the claimed error for the first time on appeal. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: App.3d 729, 738, fn. 5.) Finally, we disagree with Abatti's assertion that under In Re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, we are bound by factual findings to which the District did not objec... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: App.3d 729, 738, fn. 5.) Finally, we disagree with Abatti's assertion that under In Re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, we are bound by factual findings to which the District did not objec... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.3d+476"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1972) 10 Cal.3d 476</a>

  • Conservatorship of Navarrete: App.4th 628, 641.) A conservatee may overcome a petition and retain the right to decide to enter or exit a marriage as long as they have the capacity to express their preference on the matter. (Id. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="114+Cal.App.4th+587"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 587</a>

  • Conservatorship of Navarrete: App.4th 628, 641.) A conservatee may overcome a petition and retain the right to decide to enter or exit a marriage as long as they have the capacity to express their preference on the matter. (Id. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.3d+877"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Fallon, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 881.) Stacey has done none of those things, and it is “neither practical nor appropriate for us to comb the record on her behalf.” (In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="141+Cal.App.4th+1509"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: App.4th 918, 932 “Good faith, or its absence, involves a factual inquiry into the person’s subjective state of mind”.) “Appellate courts ‘do not reweigh evidence... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.4th+1396"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 58 Cal.4th 1396</a>

  • In re Brace: R. 13, 4 In re BRACE Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. 17.) The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. (Id. at p. 16.) Citing In re Marriage of Valli (2014) (Valli)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.3d+808"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1979) 27 Cal.3d 808</a>

  • In re Brace: Code, § 770, subd. (a)(1).) All property acquired by a person after marriage by gift, bequest, devise, or descent is that person’s separate property. (Id., § 770... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.App.4th+277"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1994) 33 Cal.App.4th 277</a>

  • In re Brace: Although caselaw has sometimes conflated Siberell and other presumptions arising from joint title with Evidence Code section 662 (see In re Marriage of Haines (1995) –292 (Haines)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="169+Cal.App.4th+176"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 176</a>

  • In re Brace: App.4th 277, 291–292 (Haines); In re Marriage of Brooks 8 In re BRACE Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. & Robinson (2008) –187; Estate of Gallio (1995) 33 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.3d+751"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1984) 39 Cal.3d 751</a>

  • In re Brace: (1985) 39 Cal.3d 751, 762–763; Schindler, supra, 126 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="101+Cal.App.4th+581"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 581</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: J.).) Another position maintains that the clear and convincing standard of proof has no bearing on appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence. (E.g., In re Marriage of Murray (2002) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.3d+848"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (1984) 40 Cal.3d 848</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: We often have emphasized the appellate court’s general responsibility to review the record for substantial evidence, even when the clear and convincing standard of proof applied before the trial court... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="213+Cal.App.4th+983"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 213 Cal.App.4th 983</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="202+Cal.App.4th+237"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 237</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="201+Cal.App.4th+905"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Marriage of [Parties] (2012) 201 Cal.App.4th 905</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.4th+975"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Menna (1994) 11 Cal.4th 975</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: 24 how a reviewing court exercises its independent judgment when “given the power to weigh the evidence.” (Drummey, supra, 13 Cal.2d at p. 86.) As the Ettinger court noted... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="203+Cal.App.4th+580"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Michael (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 580</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Under this standard, we “accept the evidence most favorable to the order as true and discard the unfavorable evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact. [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: App.5th 219, 231.) This is “generally considered the most difficult standard of review to meet, as it should be, because it is not *See footnote, ante, page 1. 32. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.2d+191"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">31 Cal.2d 191</a>

  • Conservatorship of K.P.: Courts may not expand statutory language under the guise of interpretation. (In re Miller (1947) 31 Cal.2d 191, 199; see Code Civ. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="191+Cal.App.4th+757"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Miranda (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 757</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: 24 Kenton argues the trial court erred in issuing the attachment order ex parte because, among other reasons, there was no showing of irreparable harm or immediate danger. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="143+Cal.App.4th+1174"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Miranda (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1174</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Chadmar Group (2006) –1179.) The critical factor in considering mootness is “whether the appellate court can provide any effective relief if it finds reversible error” (In re N. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.App.5th+114"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Nathan (2020) 61 Cal.App.5th 114</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: App.5th 1078, 1089-1090 same; In re Nathan E. (2021) applied to dispositional order removing a child). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.4th+56"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Nicholas (2001) 28 Cal.4th 56</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: 19 But even if the natural parent and child presumption between Charles and Judy could be rebutted purely on public policy groundsa premise we rejectwe disagree with Shannon’s assertion that public... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.4th+1217"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Nolan (2007) 45 Cal.4th 1217</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). (R.T., at p. 629.) That provision “authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a finding that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for her failure or inability to s... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="143+Cal.App.4th+1426"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Noreen (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1426</a>

  • Adoption of M.R.: App.4th at p. 1384; In re Rebecca R. (2006) .) 4 II Analysis A. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="940+F.2d+1317"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">940 F.2d 1317</a>

  • In re Brace: If the properties are separate, then only Clifford Brace’s one-half property interest becomes part of the estate. (In re Reed (9th Cir. 1991) 940 F.2d 1317, 1332; see Code Civ. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="99+Cal.App.4th+1068"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re S.D. (2001) 99 Cal.App.4th 1068</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="87+Cal.App.4th+661"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Sara (2000) 87 Cal.App.4th 661</a>

  • In re Z.O.: 8 Any “error in the procedure used to appoint a guardian ad litem for a parent in a dependency proceeding is trial error that is amenable to harmless error analysis rather than a structural defect req... [context]
  • In re Samuel A.: On its own motion the court scheduled a hearing for November 6, 2019 pursuant to In re 4 Sara D. (2001) (a Sara D. hearing) to determine whether to appoint a guardian ad litem for Patricia. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="72+Cal.App.5th+495"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Scarlett (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 495</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Standish (2006) “ ‘shall’ ” is presumptively “mandatory and not permissive”.) When the facts a petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence support SIJ predicate findings, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+Cal.App.5th+355"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Serenity (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 355</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: R. (2021) .) Accordingly, courts have held that a trial court may not terminate parental rights unless the state has first made efforts to assist a parent suffering from poverty. (See, e.g., [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.4th+875"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Sheena (2005) 40 Cal.4th 875</a>

  • People v. Washington: App.4th 1438, 1447 “an equal protection claim may be forfeited if it is raised for the first time on appeal”.) In his reply brief, Washington contends forfeiture does not apply because his equal prote... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.4th+81"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Silverton (2004) 36 Cal.4th 81</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: Although “we generally accord great weight to the Review Department’s recommendation,” “ ‘we have not hesitated to impose a harsher sanction than recommended by the department. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.3d+729"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Silverton (1984) 39 Cal.3d 729</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: Although “we generally accord great weight to the Review Department’s recommendation,” “ ‘we have not hesitated to impose a harsher sanction than recommended by the department. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.4th+1257"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Tobacco Cases (2006) 41 Cal.4th 1257</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) matters subject to judicial notice must be relevant to issues raised on appeal, overruled on another ground in In re Tobacco Cases II (2007) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="192+Cal.+506"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">192 Cal. 506</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: II. Analysis Section 11700, as case law explains, provides a means for the court to adjudicate the “rights of an heir, devisee, or legatee to a share of the estate.” (Estate of Flores, supra... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="118+Cal.App.4th+684"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re William (2003) 118 Cal.App.4th 684</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.4th+396"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">In re Zeth (2002) 31 Cal.4th 396</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Code of Civil Procedure section 909 motions may be granted only in “exceptional circumstances,” and nothing argued here meets that standard. (In re Zeth S. (2003) , italics omitted. [context]
  • In re E.L.: This section shall be liberally construed to the end among others that, where feasible, causes may be finally disposed of by a single In re Zeth (2003) , [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="153+Cal.App.4th+1308"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Services (2007) .) It is significant, however, that when a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties, facts which would ordinarily require investigation may not excite suspicion and less dilig... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="146+Cal.App.4th+536"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 536</a>

  • Breslin v. Breslin: Superior Court (2007) .) It permits a trustee to favor some beneficiaries over others—in 1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Probate Code. breach of the duty of impartiality (§ 16003)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="132+Cal.App.4th+483"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Indoe v. Olivos (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 483</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+191"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Industry v. City (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 191</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: City of Fillmore (2011) , states the general rule that an appellate court must consider the grounds advanced and actually argued in the demurrer and may consider other legal grounds not there advanced... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="78+Cal.App.4th+847"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (1999) 78 Cal.App.4th 847</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) ; In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.App.4th+1372"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ins. Co. v. Foremost Ins. Co. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1372</a>

  • Gomez v. Smith: Co. (1993) a party forfeits any defects in the statement of decision by failing to file timely objections.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 634 and California Rules of Court, rule 232, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="165+Cal.App.4th+1315"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.App.5th+162"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Irvin v. Contra (2016) 13 Cal.App.5th 162</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2017) ), the Chamberlain and Ettinger courts failed to recognize that our Supreme Court did not uniformly employ the weight of the evidence phrase as a... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.2d+809"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">26 Cal.2d 809</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: 12 judgment in its favor—overlooks the fundamental requirement that a claim in court must be proven. And it ignores the law of judgment on the pleadings. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: 12 judgment in its favor—overlooks the fundamental requirement that a claim in court must be proven. And it ignores the law of judgment on the pleadings. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="134+Cal.App.4th+1076"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Isaac v. Waste Management (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1076</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Superior Court (2013) .) In determining legislative intent, “ ‘we first look to the plain meaning of the statutory language, then to its legislative history... [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Superior Court (2013) .) In determining legislative intent, “ ‘we first look to the plain meaning of the statutory language, then to its legislative history... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.2d+692"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ivanhoe Irr. Dist. v. All Parties 53 Cal.2d 692</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: All Parties (1960) 53 Cal.2d 692, 715-716 (Ivanhoe III).) 24 water. (Id. at p. 371, citing Ivanhoe I, supra, 47 Cal.2d at pp. 624- 625.) (See Bryant, at p. 371, fn. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: All Parties (1960) 53 Cal.2d 692, 715-716 (Ivanhoe III).) 24 water. (Id. at p. 371, citing Ivanhoe I, supra, 47 Cal.2d at pp. 624- 625.) (See Bryant, at p. 371, fn. [context]

J

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.App.4th+171"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jackson v. County (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171</a>

  • Amundson v. Catello: County of Los Angeles (1997) .) We have discretion to bar a party from taking a contrary position on appeal when “(1) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="443+U.S.+307"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">443 U.S. 307</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="179+Cal.App.4th+75"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jackson v. Yarbray (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 75</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="239+Cal.App.4th+1214"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc. (2014) 239 Cal.App.4th 1214</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.5th+594"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jameson v. Desta (2017) 5 Cal.5th 594</a>

  • Searles v. Archangel: Desta (2018) .) Thus, in Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 20 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="215+Cal.App.4th+1144"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jameson v. Desta (2012) 215 Cal.App.4th 1144</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Desta (2013) .) “The fiduciary duties a partner owes to the partnership and the other partners are the duty of loyalty and the duty of care . . . .” (§ 16404, subd. (a). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="219+Cal.App.4th+1316"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">January 2013, and once the decision in 420 Caregivers, supra (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1316</a>

  • People v. Braum: City of Los Angeles (2012) (420 Caregivers) and Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 243 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="59+Cal.+703"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">59 Cal. 703</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Cooper (1881) , for example, this court had explained, “It is doubtless a well-settled rule that the party 9 CONSERVATORSHIP OF O. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.App.5th+113"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jarvis v. Jarvis (2018) 33 Cal.App.5th 113</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Jarvis (2019) (Jarvis).) Disqualification may be ordered as a prophylactic measure 9 against a prospective ethical violation likely to have a substantial continuing effect on future proceedings. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="218+Cal.App.4th+1522"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Mahaffey (2013) (Jay).) Strictly speaking, Attorneys’ reply presented new argument rather than new evidence. [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Mahaffey (2013) (Jay), the defendants argued that when the statute states that “the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liabilit... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.App.5th+543"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 543</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Ltd. (2019) -552.) 8 IV EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATE COURT Bewley contends that the probate court had exclusive jurisdiction of the property. Under this general heading... [context]
  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: Ltd. (2019) .) 6 We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s order. (Betz v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="149+Cal.+500"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">149 Cal. 500</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="200+Cal.+318"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">200 Cal. 318</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Dist. (1927) (Crawford) 20 prime object and purpose is to provide water for the use of its inhabitants and land owners for irrigation and domestic purposes; City of Modesto v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Dist. (1927) (Crawford) 20 prime object and purpose is to provide water for the use of its inhabitants and land owners for irrigation and domestic purposes; City of Modesto v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="230+Cal.App.4th+1128"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jenkins v. Teegarden (2013) 230 Cal.App.4th 1128</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="111+Cal.App.4th+698"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jessen v. Hartford (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 698</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="119+Cal.App.4th+671"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jessen v. Hartford (2003) 119 Cal.App.4th 671</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2004) material confidential information is that which is ‘directly at issue in’ or has ‘some critical importance to, the second representation’. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="207+Cal.+8"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">207 Cal. 8</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="63+Cal.4th+91"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">John v. Superior Court (2014) 63 Cal.4th 91</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.: Surety contends the trial court prematurely entered summary judgment because Emergency rule 9, which expressly tolled “the statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action” from April 6, [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: Superior Court (2016) .) “Our task is to discern the Legislature’s intent. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="166+Cal.App.4th+1497"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1497</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.4th+598"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Johnson v. Greenelsh (2008) 47 Cal.4th 598</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Standard of Review The interpretation of a will presents a question of law for our independent review when there is no conflict or question of credibility in the relevant extrinsic evidence. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="138+Cal.App.4th+1325"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Johnson v. Greenelsh (2005) 138 Cal.App.4th 1325</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: George (1994) , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Estate of Rossi (2006) -1332, 1339.) To the extent the probate court’s decision rests on its findings of fact, however... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="76+Cal.App.4th+83"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Johnson v. Kotyck (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 83</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Kotyck (1999) .) The conservator must also prevent misappropriation of the conservatee’s assets. (Ibid.) A fiduciary has a duty to provide full disclosure of all material facts that affect the benefic... [context]
  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Kotyck (1999) , supra, 214 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.App.4th+613"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Johnson v. Pratt (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 613</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Pratt & Whitney Canada, Ltd. (1994) –623 (Johnson).) We also observe that the Hogoboom treatise cites Brookwood v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.App.4th+1667"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Johnson v. Pratt (1995) 45 Cal.App.4th 1667</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="66+Cal.App.4th+68"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Johnson v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 68</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 269, 293 (Cheriton).) Thus, a child’s need is for more than “bare necessities” and varies with the parents’ situation. “‘Accordingly, where the supporting parent enjoys a lifestyle that far ex... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.App.5th+921"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Johnson v. Superior Court (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 921</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+347"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jolly v. Martin (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 347</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.App.4th+161"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jolly v. Martin (1994) 33 Cal.App.4th 161</a>

  • Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst: App.4th 347, 353-354; see BelshĂŠ v. Hope (1995) .) Here, the probate court failed to provide its reasons for denying payment of the department’s claim. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="141+Cal.+96"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">141 Cal. 96</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Board of Police Commissioners (1903) .) Second, while a court may, in construing a term of art, consider the history of a term’s legal interpretation as a guide to the Legislature’s intended meaning r... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="152+Cal.App.4th+1367"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jones v. Department (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.App.4th+1245"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jordan v. City (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1245</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: City of Santa Barbara (1996) , italics added; accord, Foreman & Clark Corp. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="213+Cal.+606"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jordan v. Great Western Motorways (1931) 213 Cal. 606</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: Lay witnesses may testify about another person’s health or mental condition when they have personally observed the relevant facts, without needing to be qualified as medical experts.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.2d+13"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">32 Cal.2d 13</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: App.3d 581, 591 (Lazzarone).) However, the probate court has inherent equitable authority to set aside an order or decree when extrinsic factors have deprived a party of a fair adversary hearing. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.4th+747"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Julian v. Hartford (2004) 35 Cal.4th 747</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: Co. (2005) , fn. 4.) We therefore solely consider whether there was substantial evidence to support a finding that Lynne acted in bad faith when she sought to remove Mildred as the trustee based on th... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="150+Cal.App.4th+789"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789</a>

K

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="143+Cal.App.4th+13"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kaatz v. City (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 13</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: City of Seaside (2006) .) A judgment in a validation proceeding is binding and conclusive, as to all matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been adjudicated . . . . (Code Civ. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: City of Seaside (2006) .) A judgment in a validation proceeding is binding and conclusive, as to all matters therein adjudicated or which at that time could have been adjudicated . . . . (Code Civ. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.5th+330"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kabran v. Sharp (2016) 2 Cal.5th 330</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="15+Cal.3d+942"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kabran v. Sharp (1975) 15 Cal.3d 942</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Armstrong (1976) 15 Cal.3d 942, 950-951.) In a nod to that limitation, Michael and Joseph argue the trial court “exceeded its jurisdiction” by failing to include in the buyout value “the economic impa... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="95+Cal.App.4th+1416"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kalaba v. Gray (2001) 95 Cal.App.4th 1416</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="225+Cal.App.4th+569"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kalenian v. Insen (2013) 225 Cal.App.4th 569</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Insen (2014) –576 (Kalenian); Estate of Stoddart (2004) 115 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="115+Cal.App.4th+1118"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kalenian v. Insen (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1118</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: App.4th 569, 575–576 (Kalenian); Estate of Stoddart (2004) –1126.) An order settling an account of a fiduciary is an appealable order. (§1300, subd. (b). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.3d+179"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kapelus v. State (1986) 44 Cal.3d 179</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="98+Cal.App.4th+892"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kashian v. Harriman (2001) 98 Cal.App.4th 892</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Harriman (2002) .) As our Supreme Court has recognized, “ ‘just as communications preparatory or in anticipation of bringing an action or other official proceeding are within the protection of the lit... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="171+Cal.App.4th+229"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kasperbauer v. Fairfield (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 229</a>

  • Conservatorship of Martha: The appropriate standard of appellate review for an award of statutory attorney fees is abuse of discretion.
  • Humphrey v. Bewley: App.2d 315, 319; accord, Kasperbauer v. Fairfield (2009) .) 12 We also note that the probate court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate adverse claims to property of the estate (Prob. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="141+Cal.+116"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">141 Cal. 116</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Walkinshaw (1903) -136, 141 overlying owners had correlative rights in common supply of groundwater, and were entitled to reasonable use; Rancho Santa Margarita v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Walkinshaw (1903) -136, 141 overlying owners had correlative rights in common supply of groundwater, and were entitled to reasonable use; Rancho Santa Margarita v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="29+Cal.4th+911"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kavanaugh v. West (2001) 29 Cal.4th 911</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.4th+247"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Keener v. Jeld (2008) 46 Cal.4th 247</a>

  • People v. Braum: Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2009) –265.) Even assuming Braum had preserved the issue for appeal, defendants’ argument is based upon a faulty premise. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="102+Cal.App.4th+308"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Keitel v. Heubel (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: A. (2002) )—applies here, particularly where the circumstances giving rise to the argument (i.e., an asserted pleading defect) were known to Attorneys when their anti-SLAPP motion was filed. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.2d+356"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">11 Cal.2d 356</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.4th+336"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kelly v. Stroud (2002) 32 Cal.4th 336</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: App.5th 905, 922.) . .) (We will refer to this as the favorable termination element.) Second, the defendant must have brought the prior action without probable cause. (Ibid.) Third... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="76+Cal.App.4th+590"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kelsey v. Waste (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 590</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="235+Cal.App.4th+1474"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kennedy v. Kennedy (2014) 235 Cal.App.4th 1474</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Kennedy (2015) “upon dismissal of a dissolution cause of action, there is no dissolution to avoid and, thus, no right to buy out plaintiff’s interests” under section 2000; Panakosta, Partners, LP v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.App.5th+1187"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kerley v. Weber (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1187</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Weber (2018) , the court reviewed the statutory language and concluded no separate bad faith finding was necessary for double damages when liability was premised on the third category of conduct, [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: Weber (2018) , citing ibid. “the purpose of section 859 is to punish and deter the wrongdoer”; Hill v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="106+Cal.App.4th+368"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kerns v. CSE Insurance Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368</a>

  • Conservatorship of Martha: Courts have the inherent authority to reconsider and modify their own interim orders.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.4th+1122"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: The appellant bears the burden of creating a complete and adequate record for appellate review. Without a sufficient record, the appellate court cannot properly assess the trial court’s findings.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.App.5th+505"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Key v. Tyler (2018) 34 Cal.App.5th 505</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Tyler (2019) “Probate Code does not itself provide rules for . . . any other procedure for a preliminary determination of the strength of a petitioner’s case prior to deciding disputed facts”. [context]
  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: Tyler (2019) [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Tyler (2019) (Key).) “Under current law, a no contest clause is enforceable against a ‘direct contest that is brought 5 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Probate Code. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="217+Cal.App.4th+156"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Khazan v. Sabella (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 156</a>

  • Welch v. Welch: Eves (2013) ; see also Levi Strauss & Co. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.App.4th+612"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Khoury v. Maly (1992) 14 Cal.App.4th 612</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="237+Cal.App.4th+488"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Killian v. Millard (2014) 237 Cal.App.4th 488</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="188+Cal.App.4th+758"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Killian v. Millard (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 758</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.5th+73"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kim v. Reins (2019) 9 Cal.5th 73</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: Reins International California, Inc. (2020) .) Chapter 3 of the LPS Act (§§ 5350–5372) provides for the imposition of a conservatorship over a gravely disabled individual under specifically described... [context]
  • Tukes v. Richard: Reins International California, Inc. (2020) , the Supreme Court affirmed that “a dismissal with prejudice is considered a judgment on the merits preventing subsequent litigation between the parties on... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="477+U.S.+365"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986) 477 U.S. 365</a>

  • Conservatorship of R.J.: A court presumes that an attorney’s performance is within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, and the claimant must affirmatively demonstrate that counsel’s conduct was deficient and...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="204+Cal.App.4th+1186"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">King v. Lynch (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1186</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="176+Cal.+333"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">176 Cal. 333</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="90+Cal.App.4th+987"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Klajic v. Castaic (2000) 90 Cal.App.4th 987</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="202+Cal.App.4th+1342"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Klein v. Chevron (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1342</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: A., Inc. (2012) (Klein)). 20 On appeal, Tukes chose to address in her opening brief only the theories relied upon by the probate court as well as claim preclusion. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.4th+68"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Klein v. United (2009) 50 Cal.4th 68</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.App.5th+504"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Knapp v. Ginsberg (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 504</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.3d+1025"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Knight v. State (1989) 53 Cal.3d 1025</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1025, 1032; see Connor v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.3d+1047"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Knight v. State (1988) 50 Cal.3d 1047</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="205+Cal.App.4th+417"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Dean (2012) (Knox), to argue that a party seeking to set aside a judgment based on misrepresentations of fact must show the facts could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the entry of judgme... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.App.5th+1075"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Knutson v. Foster (2017) 25 Cal.App.5th 1075</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Foster (2018) .) “The law in this state is that the testimony of a single person, including the plaintiff, may be sufficient to support an award of emotional distress damages.” (Ibid. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.2d+452"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">21 Cal.2d 452</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.App.5th+13"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kramer v. Traditional (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Traditional Escrow, Inc. (2020) .) “‘A finding . . . based upon a reasonable inference . . . will not be set aside by an appellate court unless it appears that the inference was wholly irreconcilable... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.2d+489"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kreling v. Superior Court 3 Cal.2d 489</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Lindsay- Strathmore Irrigation Dist. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489, 533 (Tulare).) However, Abatti did not ask for a declaration of rights; instead, he assumed that the farmers possessed certain water rights th... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Lindsay- Strathmore Irrigation Dist. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489, 533 (Tulare).) However, Abatti did not ask for a declaration of rights; instead, he assumed that the farmers possessed certain water rights th... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.App.4th+573"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kring v. Superior (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 573</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Superior Court (1997) -581 (Smith).) “Trial judges must indicate on the record they have considered the appropriate factors and make specific findings of fact when weighing the conflicting interests i... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.App.5th+299"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Krolikowski v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 299</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: App. 126, 134 “Every point relied upon for reversal should be stated and argued in the opening brief of counsel for the appellant; and therefore points not so stated and argued may be deemed to be wai... [context]
  • Hudson v. Foster: App.5th 844, 851.) “Normally, we must presume the trial court was aware of and understood the scope of its authority and discretion under the applicable law. Citations.” (Barriga v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="192+Cal.App.4th+90"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A general assignment of a party’s real and personal property, even when the specific assets (such as shares of stock) are not itemized, is legally sufficient to effect a valid transfer of those assets...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="436+U.S.+84"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">436 U.S. 84</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="114+Cal.App.4th+1135"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kulko v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) , the plaintiff served a complaint on two entities that it had intended to add by Doe amendment but failed to do so properly (at the time of service... [context]
  • Schrage v. Schrage: Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) -1147; In re Marriage of Williams (1985) 163 Cal. [context]
  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) .) “The determination of special appearance versus general appearance is based on the ‘character of the relief sought,’ not by statements of intention of the party. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.4th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2005) 38 Cal.4th 1</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: App.3d 369, 375 judicial notice of facts stated in deposition testimony 3. .) The facts recited below are alleged in Limon’s complaint, or are judicially noticeable. [context]
  • Ring v. Harmon: City of Berkeley (2006) [context]

L

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.App.4th+300"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">L. Byron Culver & Associates v. Jaoudi Industrial & Trading Corporation (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 300</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A party may not introduce a new argument on appeal that was never raised and preserved in the trial court; issues not presented to the lower court are deemed waived and are not reviewable on appeal.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.App.5th+882"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LLP v. Lahiji (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 882</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Lahiji (2019) .) We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to lift a discovery stay for abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) There is no way to determine whether the trial court erred or abused its discret... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.3d+747"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lackner v. La (1979) 25 Cal.3d 747</a>

  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: LaCroix (1979) 25 Cal.3d 747, 752.) Meiri cites this language in Lackner to argue that a statute of limitations cannot be used as a sword to defeat a determination of probable cause. [context]
  • Maleti v. Wickers: LaCroix (1979) 25 Cal.3d 747, 750 (Lackner).) The malicious prosecution plaintiff need not prove “that the prior proceeding was favorably terminated following trial on the merits. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.2d+497"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">28 Cal.2d 497</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1946) 28 Cal.2d 497, 504; see Pickering v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.2d+141"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">24 Cal.2d 141</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1944) 24 Cal.2d 141, 145 Business and Professions Code denounces “the endeavor to secure an advantage by means of falsity” without regard to whether anyone was actually deceived 18 In re BR... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.App.5th+398"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lafferty v. Wells (2017) 25 Cal.App.5th 398</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: A. (2018) , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Pulliam v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.App.5th+396"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lafferty v. Wells (2020) 60 Cal.App.5th 396</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.2d+790"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">21 Cal.2d 790</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Bd. of Medical Examiners (1943) 21 Cal.2d 790; Sipper v. Urban (1943) 22 Cal.2d 138, 816 the scope of review under section 1094.5 is the same as that specified in the cases outlined “in part II. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="22+Cal.2d+138"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">22 Cal.2d 138</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Bd. of Medical Examiners (1943) 21 Cal.2d 790; Sipper v. Urban (1943) 22 Cal.2d 138, 816 the scope of review under section 1094.5 is the same as that specified in the cases outlined “in part II. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.4th+1103"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1998) 20 Cal.4th 1103</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="158+Cal.App.4th+1120"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lambert v. Carneghi (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="30+Cal.3d+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Landrum v. Superior (1981) 30 Cal.3d 1</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 1, 14.) Section 8251 prescribes a different procedure for will contests. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.3d+554"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Landry v. Berryessa (1982) 34 Cal.3d 554</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 563 “it is presumed that the 14 court followed the law. . . . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.4th+691"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Landry v. Berryessa Union School District (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691</a>

  • Conservatorship of R.J.: An issue that lacks a cognizable legal argument or sufficient factual/legal analysis is deemed abandoned/forfeited, and the appellate court need not consider it.
  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) -699; see also Wilson v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.App.5th+61"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lane v. Bell (2017) 20 Cal.App.5th 61</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="243+Cal.App.4th+441"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lanz v. Goldstone (2014) 243 Cal.App.4th 441</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Goldstone (2015) (Lanz) supports our conclusion. There, an attorney (Lanz), sued his former client, Garcia-Bolio, for attorney fees incurred in a prior Marvin (Marvin v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.2d+680"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">3 Cal.2d 680</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Bank of America, 3 Cal.2d 680, 684– 685; Caldwell v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="91+Cal.+565"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">91 Cal. 565</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="138+Cal.+536"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">138 Cal. 536</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="138+Cal.+220"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">138 Cal. 220</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="192+Cal.+651"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">192 Cal. 651</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.4th+631"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lazar v. Superior Court (1995) 12 Cal.4th 631</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: The elements of fraud are misrepresentation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance on the misrepresentation, justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and resulting damages. (Lazar v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="182+Cal.App.4th+1588"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Leader v. Cords (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1588</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Cords (2010) .) “Generally, a trial court’s . . . award of fees and costs is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (Goodman v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.4th+1327"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Leader v. Cords (2008) 47 Cal.4th 1327</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="89+Cal.App.4th+603"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Leader v. Health (2000) 89 Cal.App.4th 603</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) .) When the motion seeks to strike allegations of punitive damages, however, the standard of review is de novo, because the “motion to strike, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="887+F.2d+1003"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">887 F.2d 1003</a>

  • Riverside County Public Guardian v. Snukst: Kizer (9th Cir. 1989) 887 F.2d 1003, 1006-1008 (noting that the term “estate,” before Oct. 1, 1993, was limited to the common law definition such that property passing to a joint tenant by right of su... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="225+Cal.App.4th+771"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Leal v. Mauro (2013) 225 Cal.App.4th 771</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: App.5th 1198, 1206 “simply being an elder’s child is not sufficient to confer standing” where child had no “legally cognizable interest in her mother’s revocable living trust”... [context]
  • Estate of Tarlow: We need not discuss that argument because Simon need not plead facts concerning the disclaimer to 8 Estate of Sobol (2014) involved a will contest that required the application of section 48. [context]
  • Keading v. Keading: Code, § 48.) Accordingly, we reject Kenton’s standing challenge. 3 An “interested person” is defined as “an heir, devisee, child, spouse, creditor, beneficiary... [context]
  • Estate of Eimers: The meaning of “interested person” as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and shall be determined according to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="385+U.S.+276"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">385 U.S. 276</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: S. 418, 423-424; Woodby v. Immigration Service (1966) -286.) Other findings requiring clear and convincing proof include whether a civil defendant is guilty of the “oppression, fraud... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="157+Cal.+82"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">157 Cal. 82</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Lassen Irrigation Co. (1909) (Leavitt) water suppliers acting in public capacity must supply all alike who are like situated.) At the same time, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Lassen Irrigation Co. (1909) (Leavitt) water suppliers acting in public capacity must supply all alike who are like situated.) At the same time, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.3d+37"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lebbos v. State (1989) 53 Cal.3d 37</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.3d+492"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lebbos v. State (1987) 47 Cal.3d 492</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1988) 47 Cal.3d 492 attorney disbarred for misconduct involving moral turpitude and dishonesty in handling client and trust funds.) CONCLUSION We order that respondent Drexel Andrew Bradsha... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="168+Cal.App.4th+558"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lee v. An (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 558</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.4th+1225"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lee v. Hanley (2013) 61 Cal.4th 1225</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: Ultimately we choose the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the lawmakers, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute.” (Lee v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="177+Cal.+656"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">177 Cal. 656</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Hibernia Savings & Loan Society (1918) ), a minor’s contract for personal services (Berg, supra, 148 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.3d+927"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lee v. State (1969) 2 Cal.3d 927</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="236+Cal.App.4th+1367"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Leeman v. Adams (2014) 236 Cal.App.4th 1367</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Adams Extract & Spice, LLC (2015) –1374 (Leeman).) A settlement is enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 if some parties stipulate orally in court while others agree in writing. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="112+Cal.App.4th+1161"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lempert v. Superior (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1161</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: Superior Court (2003) “the determination whether to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record lies within the sound discretion of the trial court... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="84+Cal.App.4th+536"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Lennane (2000) , governs our authority in this regard. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.+660"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">19 Cal. 660</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Barth (1862) , we observed that when the correction of a mistake in a written instrument was sought in equity, the evidence showing such a mistake “must be clear and convincing, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.App.4th+958"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Levi v. O'Connell (1992) 17 Cal.App.4th 958</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.3d+1140"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Levin v. State (1987) 47 Cal.3d 1140</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1988) 47 Cal.3d 429, 446 habitual disregard of client’s interests such as misrepresenting case statuses.) The fact that lack of honesty can give rise to culpability for a scheme to defraud... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="64+Cal.2d+787"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">64 Cal.2d 787</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1966) 64 Cal.2d 787, 792–793.) 17 In re BRADSHAW Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find Bradshaw culpable of engaging in a scheme to defraud... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.5th+1025"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Levin v. Winston (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1025</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Winston-Levin (2019) –1036) or merely undue influence without any additional showing of heightened culpability (Keading v. [context]
  • Keading v. Keading: Winston-Levin (2019) (Levin) concluded otherwise, stating, “We do not believe the Legislature intended to provide double damages for undue influence without bad faith.” (Id. at p. 1036. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.App.5th+1115"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Levin v. Winston (2020) 60 Cal.App.5th 1115</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="183+Cal.App.4th+238"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lewis & Bockius, LLP (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 238</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP (2010) .) We treat as true “ ‘all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.’ ” (Blank, at p. 318.) 1. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="100+Cal.App.4th+1047"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Liang v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1047</a>

  • People v. Braum: Defendant contends in his opening brief that he “pled nolo contendere and was convicted on all charges.” But, as we discuss above, the record on appeal does not indicate whether defendant was sentence... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="161+Cal.+689"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lightner Mining Co. v. Lane 161 Cal. 689</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="211+Cal.App.4th+688"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Limited v. Farley (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 688</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Farley (2012) noting that rule 2.30 affords trial courts discretion (Sino Century).) But Richard and Brown have not asked us to review the trial court’s exercise of discretion. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.3d+278"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Liodas v. Sahadi (1976) 19 Cal.3d 278</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: App.3d at pp. 369-370), the court rejected the assertion that civil fraud had to be proven by clear and convincing evidence and, “in doing so reaffirmed the standard of proof by a preponderance of the... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.4th+156"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lisa R. (2004) 37 Cal.4th 156</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: 26 trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by including the UCNP entities in the alternative decree. (See Kristine H. v. Lisa R. (2005) “Given that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.5th+663"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lisi v. Lam (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 663</a>

  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Lam (2019) .) The designation of a trustee solely so that trustee could take advantage of the family move-in provision would likely fail this test. D. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.App.5th+970"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Litinsky v. Kaplan (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 970</a>

  • Guardianship of A.H.: Kaplan (2019) .) Significantly, in this case, Harber was her own only witness. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.2d+481"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court 28 Cal.2d 481</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Superior Court (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481, 484.) As already indicated, it is reasonable and practical to construe Probate Code section 859 according to its plain meaning as allowing double damages when prop... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.4th+728"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 31 Cal.4th 728</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: LaMarche (2003) , fn. 1 (Jarrow Formulas).) Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated. . 2 Attorneys challenge the Order denying the special motion to str... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.4th+415"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lockyer v. Shamrock (1999) 24 Cal.4th 415</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) , fn. 2.) As discussed in part VI, ante, notice by publication in a quiet title action must include either: (1) a particular description (other than the legal description) pl... [context]
  • Donkin v. Donkin: Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) meaning and construction of statutes reviewed de novo.) Based on our independent review of the applicable law and the trust document, [context]
  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) interpretation of a statute is an issue of law; Burch v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="217+Cal.App.4th+1114"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lopez v. Brown (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1114</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.4th+155"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Los Angeles (1991) 1 Cal.4th 155</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: County of Los Angeles (1991) -162 task force report on property taxes was a part of the relevant legislative history; Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. County of San Diego (2009) 176 Cal. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: County of Los Angeles (1991) -162 task force report on property taxes was a part of the relevant legislative history; Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. County of San Diego (2009) 176 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.App.4th+757"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Loth v. Truck (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 757</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Truck-A-Way Corp. (1998) (Loth) there is no set “standard for determining pain and suffering damages , and no expert may supply a formula for computing . . . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="63+Cal.App.4th+48"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lovett v. Carrasco (1997) 63 Cal.App.4th 48</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.3d+335"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lucido v. Superior (1989) 51 Cal.3d 335</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, citation omitted.) The doctrine's requirements are as follows: First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341, citation omitted.) The doctrine's requirements are as follows: First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.2d+127"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">57 Cal.2d 127</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: Guerin (1961) 57 Cal.2d 127, 132, superseded by statute on unrelated grounds as stated in Ferraro v. [context]
  • Roth v. Jelley: Guerin (1961) 57 Cal.2d 127, 131–132 if a will “creates an express trust, the legal title of the trustee and the equitable title of the beneficiary vest as of the date of death” of the testator; [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="161+Cal.App.4th+509"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ludwicki v. Guerin (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: Camarlinghi (2008) .) Here, because Simon is the named trustee of the Trust, he is a devisee under the will, entitled to receive and administer the trust property from the Estate... [context]
  • Roth v. Jelley: Camarlinghi (2008) stipulated judgment based on settlement agreement had no preclusive effect on a stranger to the settlement agreement.) The phrase “that such individual would have taken if then livi... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.App.4th+8"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ludwig v. Superior (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 8</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Superior Court (1995) , italics omitted.) There is no dispute that Kenton’s libel claim was based on the email Hilja sent to an attorney friend seeking a referral for a probate attorney to represent h... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.4th+294"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lungren v. Superior Court (1995) 14 Cal.4th 294</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Lungren v. Superior Court (1996) –301.) Circle K operates gas stations and convenience stores in California. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.App.4th+1810"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lusby v. Piedmont (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1810</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="225+Cal.App.4th+759"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lyles v. Sangadeo (2013) 225 Cal.App.4th 759</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.2d+579"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">20 Cal.2d 579</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. (1942) 20 Cal.2d 579 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.3d+911"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Lyons v. Wickhorst (1985) 42 Cal.3d 911</a>

  • Guardianship of A.H.: Wickhorst (1986) 42 Cal.3d 911, 917.) Five factors, taken in combination, render the order here an abuse of discretion. First, it was Harber’s attorney, not Harber, who was at fault. [context]

M

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="185+Cal.+218"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MacDonald v. Bear Film Co. 185 Cal. 218</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.2d+501"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">58 Cal.2d 501</a>

  • In re Brace: Machado (1962) 58 Cal.2d 501, 506 (Machado) divorce; Gudelj v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.2d+202"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">41 Cal.2d 202</a>

  • In re Brace: Gudelj (1953) 41 Cal.2d 202, 213–214 (Gudelj) same; Tomaier v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.2d+754"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">23 Cal.2d 754</a>

  • In re Brace: Tomaier (1944) 23 Cal.2d 754, 757 same; Schindler v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.App.5th+935"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mack v. All (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 935</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="191+Cal.App.4th+132"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mack v. All (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 132</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.3d+699"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Madden v. Kaiser (1975) 17 Cal.3d 699</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Hosps. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 710 referencing “the general rule that one who assents to a contract is bound by its provisions and cannot complain of unfamiliarity with the language of the instrument”; [context]
  • Logan v. Country Oaks Partners: Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699 (Madden), the Garrison court held “the decision to enter into optional revocable arbitration agreements in connection with placement in a health care f... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="75+Cal.App.5th+844"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2021) 75 Cal.App.5th 844</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Superior Court (2022) .) When construing a statute, we ascertain the Legislature’s intent and effectuate its purpose in enacting the statute. (Jenkins v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.App.5th+841"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mahan v. Charles (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Agency, Inc. (2017) –861 (Mahan)), while the Attachment Law, which authorizes “a harsh remedy that . . . causes the defendant to lose control of his property before the plaintiff’s claim is adjudicate... [context]
  • Herren v. George S.: Agency, Inc. (2017) , 853–854, 864 deprivation of a property right under section 15610.30 implicated where respondents allegedly restructured insurance policies held by plaintiffs’ trust with increase... [context]
  • Keading v. Keading: Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) .) Because perpetrators of undue influence rarely leave any direct evidence of their actions, plaintiffs typically 13 rely on circumstantial evidence... [context]
  • Ring v. Harmon: Agency, Inc. (2017) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="96+Cal.+53"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">96 Cal. 53</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.3d+924"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Maltaman v. State (1986) 43 Cal.3d 924</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 924, 947.) A. We first consider whether the evidence establishes under count one that Bradshaw engaged in a scheme to defraud in violation of section 6106... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.2d+501"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">11 Cal.2d 501</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Vail (1938) 11 Cal.2d 501, 518-519 superior court erred by enjoining water use among riparians based on extent of ownership, rather than current needs and uses; El Dorado Irr. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Vail (1938) 11 Cal.2d 501, 518-519 superior court erred by enjoining water use among riparians based on extent of ownership, rather than current needs and uses; El Dorado Irr. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.App.4th+793"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Marriage of Bonds (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 793</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: App.4th at p. 1374, quoting Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) (Weddington Productions).) A new or altered term is material if “it changes the rights or duties of the parties, [context]
  • Roth v. Jelley: Flick (1998) –811 a settlement agreement is a contract, and an essential element of any contract is consent; see Ferraro v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="194+Cal.App.4th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: J. (2011) –16.)” (Barriga, supra, 51 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.App.4th+289"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Marsh v. Mountain (1995) 43 Cal.App.4th 289</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+611"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Martin v. Inland (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 611</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2011) no error in denying fees and costs where granting of “anti-SLAPP motion with leave to amend was the functional equivalent of a denial”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.App.5th+191"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency (2017) 20 Cal.App.5th 191</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Southern California Financial Corp. (2018) .) We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evaluation of the parties’ relative success in the proceedings. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="893+F.3d+153"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">893 F.3d 153</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.App.5th+1109"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Martinez v. Sun (2018) 35 Cal.App.5th 1109</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.3d+660"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="166+Cal.App.4th+738"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Masry v. Masry (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 738</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Masry (2008) .) The terms “trustor” and “settlor” are interchangeable and synonymous. (See In re Marriage of Perry (1997) 58 Cal. [context]
  • Haggerty v. Thornton: Masry (2008) reservation of rights not explicitly exclusive.) Bertsch complied with the 11 statutory method by signing the 2018 amendment and delivering it to herself as trustee. [context]
  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: Masry (2008) (Masry).) In that case, the court held that a trust revocation procedure is not exclusive unless the trust document explicitly says that it is. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.App.4th+1104"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Masry v. Masry (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1104</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: App.4th 738, 743.) The terms “trustor” and “settlor” are interchangeable and synonymous. (See In re Marriage of Perry (1997) & fn. 2.) 5 Thus, when a trust specifies an amendment procedure... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="66+Cal.App.2d+757"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">McKoin v. Rosefelt (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 757</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A trustee may sue in his own name as if he were the owner of the claim, and it is not required to identify himself as trustee or reference the trust in the pleadings.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="151+Cal.App.4th+168"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Melican v. Regents (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168</a>

  • Ring v. Harmon: Regents of University of California (2007) (italics added).) The trial court is in a better position than this court to consider all of the factors relevant to that exercise of discretion. (See ibid. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="49+Cal.2d+668"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">49 Cal.2d 668</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Small Claims Court (1958) 49 Cal.2d 668, 673 “the right to a hearing includes the right to appear by counsel”.) We therefore conclude that a minor capable of making informed decisions has the right to... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="194+Cal.App.4th+1430"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mendoza v. Wichmann (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1430</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Wichmann (2011) , fn. 5 in reviewing order denying special motion to strike malicious prosecution claim, the trial court’s “prior rulings did not establish probable cause as a matter of law”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="231+Cal.App.4th+211"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Menefield v. Foreman (2013) 231 Cal.App.4th 211</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Foreman (2014) ; Children and Families Commission of Fresno County v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="228+Cal.App.4th+45"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Menefield v. Foreman (2013) 228 Cal.App.4th 45</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Brown (2014) “De novo review is appropriate where the trial court’s determination of whether statutory criteria were met presents an issue of statutory construction or a question of law.”; Munroe v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.App.5th+340"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Menezes v. Mc (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 340</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: McDaniel (2019) –351.) While “need” is irrelevant, the court must take into consideration “all evidence concerning the parties’ incomes, assets, and liabilities. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.App.4th+1443"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Merrill v. Finberg (1991) 4 Cal.App.4th 1443</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Finberg (1992) .) But resort to the Code of Civil Procedure provisions governing the time for 4 filing a demurrer is not appropriate here. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.4th+465"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Merrill v. Navegar (2000) 26 Cal.4th 465</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: 25 I. Governing Principles A. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate “if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="471+U.S.+462"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Ward (1981) 471 U.S. 462</a>

  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: Rudzewicz (1985) –476 (Burger King).) By focusing on the defendants’ reasonable expectations, this requirement ensures defendants will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely because of fortuitous or... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="161+Cal.App.4th+696"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Metters v. Ralphs (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 696</a>

  • Logan v. Country Oaks Partners: Ralphs Grocery Co. (2008) .) “The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.” (Flores v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="221+Cal.App.4th+409"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Michelle K. v. Superior Court (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 409</a>

  • Conservatorship of K.P.: Superior Court (2013) ; 6 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2020) Criminal Writs, § 25, pp. 630–631.) 2. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="186+Cal.+409"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">186 Cal. 409</a>

  • In re Brace: Brode (1921) a deed describing the couple as husband and wife presumptively created a tenancy in common; In re Regnart’s Estate (1929) 102 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="162+Cal.App.4th+1331"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Miller v. Campbell (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1331</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore (2008) in action under section 9820, subdivision (b), the trial court does not have power to order an executor to personally compensate any at... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="166+Cal.App.4th+692"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Millian v. Stroud (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 692</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="159+U.S.+651"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">159 U.S. 651</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Green (1895) .) Here, the trial court made two orders on October 20, 2020 pertinent to this appeal: (1) an order granting Chen’s disqualification motions... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.4th+1082"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mirkin v. Wasserman (1992) 5 Cal.4th 1082</a>

  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Wasserman (1993) , our Supreme Court recognized that it is possible to prove reliance on an omission by proving “that, had the omitted information been disclosed... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="462+U.S.+791"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">462 U.S. 791</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: Adams (1983) (Mennonite).) In Mennonite, the United States Supreme Court succinctly stated the rule, “Notice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice is a 12 minimum constitutional pr... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.App.5th+1184"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moeller v. Superior (2016) 9 Cal.App.5th 1184</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="230+Cal.App.4th+834"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moeller v. Superior (2013) 230 Cal.App.4th 834</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.4th+1124"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A trustee must bring any suit involving trust property in the trustee’s own name because the trust is not a separate legal entity; the trustee is the real party in interest.
  • Parker v. Schwarcz: Superior Court (1997) (Moeller), Fiduciary Trust Internat. of California v. [context]
  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Superior Court (1997) , fn. 3, quoting Rest.2d Trusts, § 2, p. 6.) When property is held in trust, “ ‘there is always a divided ownership of property, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.App.4th+980"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moffett v. Barclay (1994) 32 Cal.App.4th 980</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Barclay (1995) .) The trial court did err, however, by quashing service as to Bewley. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="70+Cal.App.4th+1197"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Monarch v. Southern (1998) 70 Cal.App.4th 1197</a>

  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1999) the delayed discovery rule for the start of a statute of limitations is an objective test asking whether the plaintiff knew or should have known, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="7+Cal.5th+781"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2018) 7 Cal.5th 781</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: Schechter (2019) , fn. 1.) Other than Dae, we use first names because some family 2 members have the same surname. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.4th+843"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moore v. Superior Court (2007) 44 Cal.4th 843</a>

  • People v. Washington: Sivongxxay (2017) .) However, an SVP proceeding is a civil commitment proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. (Moore v. Superior Court (2010) (Moore) “SVP proceedings are civil, not criminal, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.2d+301"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">32 Cal.2d 301</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Board of Medical Examiners (1948) 32 Cal.2d 301, 302, 308; Bixby v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="135+Cal.App.4th+952"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moran v. Endres (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 952</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Endres (2006) (Moran), cited by the trial court and relied on by Carol, does not dissuade us from concluding that Attorneys were “prevailing defendants” under section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="29+Cal.App.5th+540"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Morgan v. Davidson (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 540</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.App.5th+438"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Morgan v. Davidson (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 438</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.5th+1219"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Morgan v. Davidson (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1219</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.5th+705"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Morgan v. Davidson (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 705</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="223+Cal.App.4th+892"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Morgan v. Imperial (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 892</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.4th+396"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moss v. Superior (1997) 17 Cal.4th 396</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="156+Cal.App.4th+351"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mota v. Superior (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 351</a>

  • Guardianship of A.H.: Superior Court (2007) .) Here, however, the witness list exchange was due on February 3, 2021, and the case was set for trial on March 3, 2021. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.2d+457"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">27 Cal.2d 457</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1946) 27 Cal.2d 457, 468.) One such circumstance is when a drafting error defeats the trustor’s intentions. (Bilafer v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.3d+222"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moyer v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (1972) 10 Cal.3d 222</a>

  • Conservatorship of K.P.: Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230; Conservatorship of Joseph W. (2011) 199 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="167+Cal.App.4th+830"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mt. Holyoke Homes, LP v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 830</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="339+U.S.+306"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">339 U.S. 306</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.App.5th+837"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Multani v. Knight (2017) 23 Cal.App.5th 837</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Knight (2018) .) Where, as here, there is “a mistake in expression of the testator’s actual and specific intent at the time the will was drafted, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="138+Cal.App.4th+396"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Munoz v. Davis (2005) 138 Cal.App.4th 396</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="173+Cal.App.4th+1295"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Munroe v. Los (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1295</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. (2009) (Munroe).) This is true under both traditional and administrative mandamus. (Hoitt v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.4th+1094"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Murphy v. Kenneth (2005) 40 Cal.4th 1094</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) .) “We have no power to rewrite the statute to make it conform to a presumed intention that is not expressed.” (County of Santa Clara v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+Cal.App.5th+10"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Murray v. Tran (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 10</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: The Residuary Trust was irrevocable. 3We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to Robert, the party opposing the anti-SLAPP motion. (Murray v. Tran (2020) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+Cal.App.5th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Murray v. Tran (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: On September 18, 2020 we reversed the court’s order summarily denying Patricia’s section 388 petition, explaining the juvenile court had erred in construing the section 388 petition as an untimely new... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.3d+402"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 50 Cal.3d 402</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: City of Los Angeles (1990) 50 Cal.3d 402, 413.) Bewley also argues that the order setting aside the default is not appealable. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="810+F.2d+1437"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">810 F.2d 1437</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: Morris (8th Cir. 1987) 810 F.2d 1437, 1466-1467.) Without immunity, these persons “will be reluctant to accept court appointments or provide work product for the court’s use. [context]

N

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.2d+876"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">21 Cal.2d 876</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: State Bar of California (1943) 21 Cal.2d 876, 880-881, italics added) by clear and convincing evidence (Hildebrand v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.2d+816"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">18 Cal.2d 816</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: State Bar of California (1941) 18 Cal.2d 816, 828). (See also Furman v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.App.4th+753"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">National (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 753</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: State of California (1997) (National Paint) for the proposition that “concrete injury and redressability are not essential prerequisites to justiciability in California.” In National Paint... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="29+Cal.4th+82"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Navellier v. Sletten (2001) 29 Cal.4th 82</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Sletten (2002) , original italics.) . 11 “Review of an order granting or denying a motion to strike under section 425.16 is de novo. Citation. We consider ‘the pleadings... [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Sletten (2002) .) A plaintiff prevails in the second step by demonstrating that “ ‘the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favo... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.3d+910"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Neal v. Farmers (1977) 21 Cal.3d 910</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Exchange (1978) 21 Cal.3d 910, in which a statute barred recovery of damages actually caused by the defendant’s tortious acts. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.4th+273"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Neary v. Regents (1991) 3 Cal.4th 273</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Regents of University of California (1992) .) We therefore reject the argument that the pending ILIT and anti-SLAPP appeals had the effect of staying the proceedings that are the subject of this appea... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="447+U.S.+352"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">447 U.S. 352</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Curtis (1889) -408 (Curtis).) We discuss appropriative rights in more detail, post. 12 (1980) , 368, fn. 19 (Bryant); see id. at p. 365 parties included class representatives for Imperial Valley lando... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Curtis (1889) -408 (Curtis).) We discuss appropriative rights in more detail, post. 12 (1980) , 368, fn. 19 (Bryant); see id. at p. 365 parties included class representatives for Imperial Valley lando... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="133+Cal.App.4th+1296"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Neilson v. City (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1296</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.App.5th+982"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982</a>

  • Conservatorship of Martha: A reviewing court will not find abuse of discretion in a lower court’s factual findings when those findings are supported by substantial evidence.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.2d+612"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">43 Cal.2d 612</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: App.4th 1172, 1175, citing Greenberg, supra, at p. 1097.) “The trier of fact may disregard all of the testimony of a party, whether contradicted or uncontradicted... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.App.5th+440"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nelson v. Black (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: Schwartz (2016) .) Lynne claimed that on the day she returned to the family home to see her dying father, she saw an alternative estate planning document which stated that her parents’ 24 estate would... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="98+Cal.App.5th+456"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Newman v. Casey (2025) 98 Cal.App.5th 456</a>

  • Johnson v. Estate of Williams: Casey , 462 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="387+U.S.+456"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">387 U.S. 456</a>

  • Johnson v. Estate of Williams: Estate of Bosch, , 461 , though California law governs here [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="99+Cal.App.5th+359"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Newman v. Casey (2025) 99 Cal.App.5th 359</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: Casey (2024) .) Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Herren committed elder financial abuse by exerting undue influence to obtain... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.4th+126"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Newman v. Wells (1995) 14 Cal.4th 126</a>

  • Breslin v. Breslin: Wells Fargo Bank (1996) .) That means honoring Don Kirchner’s final wishes above all else. Here, however, the probate court exalted principles of forfeiture over Kirchner’s express wishes... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.App.5th+1093"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Newsom v. Superior Court (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1093</a>

  • Conservatorship of You Wei Dong: An applicant seeking ex parte relief must affirmatively allege, with personal‑knowledge facts, that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm or faces an immediate danger (or otherwise satisfy the...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.5th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nickerson v. Stonebridge (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="160+Cal.App.4th+550"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nicoll v. Rudnick (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 550</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Rudnick (2008) (Nicoll) 'Both riparian and appropriative rights are usufructuary only and confer no right of private ownership in the watercourse.' . [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Rudnick (2008) (Nicoll) 'Both riparian and appropriative rights are usufructuary only and confer no right of private ownership in the watercourse.' . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.App.4th+560"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Noble v. Franchise (1992) 17 Cal.App.4th 560</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="202+Cal.+98"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">202 Cal. 98</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="236+Cal.App.4th+1401"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nolte v. Cedars (2014) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401</a>

  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Cedars-Sinai Center (2015) , determined a facility fee, which was similar to Hospital’s EMS Fee, did not need to be disclosed to a patient before treatment. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="936+F.2d+1084"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nordstrom, Inc. v. Chubb & Son, Inc. 936 F.2d 1084</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Cnty. of Santa Cruz (9th Cir. 1991) 936 F.2d 1084, 1086 physical taking claim based on elimination of sunset clause in rent control provision was untimely, because duration impacted only damages; cf. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Cnty. of Santa Cruz (9th Cir. 1991) 936 F.2d 1084, 1086 physical taking claim based on elimination of sunset clause in rent control provision was untimely, because duration impacted only damages; cf. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="241+Cal.App.4th+861"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nunez v. Pennisi (2014) 241 Cal.App.4th 861</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Pennisi (2015) ); (3) by summary judgment that reflected on the merits of the claim (Sierra Club Foundation v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="72+Cal.App.4th+1135"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nunez v. Pennisi (1998) 72 Cal.App.4th 1135</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Graham (1999) -1150 (Sierra Club)); and (4) by court dismissal because the claims were barred by the litigation privilege (Berman v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.3d+616"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nunn v. State (1982) 35 Cal.3d 616</a>

  • People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation: State of California (1984) 35 Cal.3d 616, 624.) The Advisory Committee Comment specifically limits the meaning of special proceedings of a civil nature to “include all proceedings in title 3 of the co... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="122+Cal.App.4th+1229"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Uba (2004) .) Although it is not our task “ ‘to search the record on our own’ ” when “ ‘a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record’ ” (Id. at p. 1246)... [context]

O

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="15+Cal.App.5th+67"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">O'Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 67</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: California Horse Racing Bd. (2017) ; Tarin v. [context]
  • Keading v. Keading: California Horse Racing Bd. (2017) .) “Standing, for purposes of the Elder Abuse Act, must be analyzed in a manner that induces interested persons to report elder abuse and to file lawsuits against el... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="224+Cal.App.4th+210"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oakland v. Oakland (2013) 224 Cal.App.4th 210</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="206+Cal.App.4th+1349"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oliveira v. Kiesler (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1349</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Kiesler (2012) .) In the days leading up to the hearing on Hilja’s anti-SLAPP motion, Kenton filed a series of ex parte and noticed motions to delay it. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.3d+390"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Olson v. Cory (1982) 35 Cal.3d 390</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.2d+434"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">4 Cal.2d 434</a>

  • In re Brace: Olson (1935) 4 Cal.2d 434, 438 common law form of deed presumption characterized property conveyed by parties who were not married at the time; Rench v. McMullen (1947) 82 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.App.5th+259"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ontiveros v. Constable Insurance (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 259</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: On the other hand, if the purchasing parties tender the amount determined by the court, the moving party cannot reject the share price as being too low.’ Citation. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="206+Cal.App.4th+463"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ortega v. Topa (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 463</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Co. (2012) ) but are under no obligation to do so (see, e.g., Roman v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="85+Cal.App.4th+316"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ortega v. Topa (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 316</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: County of Los Angeles (2000) , fn. 2). 21 But this does not fully answer the question because waiver and abandonment rules also apply. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.App.4th+1197"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Osal v. United (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 1197</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="124+Cal.App.4th+304"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Osornio v. Weingarten (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 304</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Weingarten (2004) , fn. 7 “ ‘Issues do not have a life of their own: if they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, we consider the issues waived’ ”.) In sum, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+Cal.4th+747"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Our Supreme Court in Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2011) 55 Cal.4th 747</a>

  • Conservatorship of Navarrete: University of Southern California (2012) .) The Probate Code sets out when it’s appropriate for a trial court to appoint a conservator of the person (conservator) as well as the general powers of such... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="220+Cal.App.4th+107"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Owens v. County (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 107</a>

  • Amundson v. Catello: County of Los Angeles (2013) .) As explained, Catello has not taken inconsistent positions regarding the siblings’ rights in the property. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="30+Cal.App.5th+1115"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">O’Gara Coach Co., LLC v. Ra (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 1115</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Ra (2019) (O’Gara Coach) affirming disqualification of company’s former president and COO as counsel for former employees suing company, where counsel’s potential advantageous use of confidential info... [context]

P

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.4th+1143"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 16 Cal.4th 1143</a>

  • Haggerty v. Thornton: County of Stanislaus (1997) .) 1 Galligan’s brief also asserted that the 2016 amendment had been expressly revoked. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.2d+855"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pacific Home v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 41 Cal.2d 855</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: An oral court pronouncement that is inconsistent with a later written order is not controlling; the subsequent written order governs the parties’ rights and obligations.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.App.5th+1246"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Padron v. Watchtower (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1246</a>

  • Conservatorship of Farrant: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2017) court upheld award of sanctions at rate of $4,000 per day for refusal to comply with discovery order where sanctioned party “abused the litiga... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="199+Cal.App.4th+612"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Panakosta, Partners, LP v. Hammer Lane Management, LLC (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 612</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Hammer Lane Management, LLC (2011) “without a pending judicial dissolution action, the trial court was without jurisdiction to allow the buyout petition to proceed”; Dabney v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="79+Cal.App.4th+986"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pang v. Beverly (1999) 79 Cal.App.4th 986</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Beverly Hospital Inc. (2000) -990 motion for judgment on pleadings.) 10 II. The Act A. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Beverly Hospital Inc. (2000) -990 motion for judgment on pleadings.) 10 II. The Act A. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="243+Cal.App.4th+799"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Parisi v. Mazzaferro (2014) 243 Cal.App.4th 799</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="228+Cal.App.4th+1483"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Parisi v. Mazzaferro (2013) 228 Cal.App.4th 1483</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.5th+994"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Park Associates, Ltd. v. Department of Health Services (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994</a>

  • Robertson v. Saadat: Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) .) We “adopt a liberal construction of the pleading and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the asserted claims.” (Candelore v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="212+Cal.App.4th+1172"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Parker v. Harbert (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1172</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Harbert (2012) ; In re Marriage of Greenberg (2011) 194 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="194+Cal.App.4th+1095"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Parker v. Harbert (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1095</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: App.4th 1172, 1177; In re Marriage of Greenberg (2011) .) Section 271 imposes a minimum level of professionalism and cooperation to effect the policy goal favoring settlement of family law litigation. [context]
  • Bruno v. Hopkins: This is the nature of fact finding. ‘The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility and weight of the evidence . . . .’ Citation.” (In re Marriage of Greenberg (2011) (Greenberg). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.4th+1173"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Parker v. Walker (1991) 5 Cal.App.4th 1173</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: App.3d 913 (Scott), further noted that “to proceed under section 851.5 a petitioner must be attempting to recover assets in which there is an interest belonging to the decedent, hence... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.2d+908"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">33 Cal.2d 908</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: City of Alhambra (1949) 33 Cal.2d 908, 925 overlying water right is based on ownership of the land and is appurtenant thereto; Nicoll, supra, 160 Cal. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: City of Alhambra (1949) 33 Cal.2d 908, 925 overlying water right is based on ownership of the land and is appurtenant thereto; Nicoll, supra, 160 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="152+Cal.+579"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">152 Cal. 579</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Pasadena Land & Water Co. (1908) -588 (South Pasadena) transfer of water rights from company to city did not relieve service obligation; mandamus could compel the continuance of the distribution, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Pasadena Land & Water Co. (1908) -588 (South Pasadena) transfer of water rights from company to city did not relieve service obligation; mandamus could compel the continuance of the distribution, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="65+Cal.App.5th+1050"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pasternack v. Mc (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1050</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: McCullough (2021) fn. 5.) 10 (See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="608+F.3d+446"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">608 F.3d 446</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Schwarzenegger (9th Cir. 2010) 608 F.3d 446, 454 finding no abuse of discretion in declining to employ Laffey Matrix outside of Washington, D. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="143+Cal.App.4th+1390"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Patchett v. Bergamot (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1390</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Bergamot Station, Ltd. (2006) ; Schrage I, supra, B288478.) Nevertheless, Michael and Joseph can challenge it in this appeal if it is a void order, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.4th+344"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Patel v. Liebermensch (2007) 45 Cal.4th 344</a>

  • Welch v. Welch: Liebermensch (2008) –352.) As a practical matter, many property settlements that parties intend to be complete overlook or disregard some items of property. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.App.4th+320"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paterno v. State (1991) 3 Cal.App.4th 320</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Hayward Unified School Dist. (1992) “Rather than brief those arguments, appellants purport to ‘incorporate’ them from papers filed below. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.3d+41"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Patton v. City (1984) 40 Cal.3d 41</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: City of Alameda (1985) 40 Cal.3d 41, 46). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="152+Cal.App.4th+339"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Patton v. Sherwood (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 339</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="130+Cal.App.4th+171"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Patton v. Sherwood (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 171</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="139+Cal.App.4th+659"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Paulus v. Bob (2005) 139 Cal.App.4th 659</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Bob Lynch Ford, Inc. (2006) .) “Our review is conducted in the same manner as the trial court in considering an anti-SLAPP motion.” (Ibid.) We review the trial court’s decision, not its rationale. [context]
  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Bob Lynch Ford, Inc. (2006) “Courts will ordinarily treat the appellant’s failure to raise an issue in his or her opening brief as a waiver of that challenge”; Aptos Council v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="29+Cal.4th+262"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pavlovich v. Superior (2001) 29 Cal.4th 262</a>

  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: Superior Court (2002) .) IV The trial court had case-linked personal jurisdiction over the mother, the daughters, and Bluth. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.2d+351"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2 Cal.2d 351</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal.2d 351, 358-359, 374- 375 in action by riparian owners, acknowledging appropriator use that causes substantial damage to land with paramount right is an impairment . . . [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal.2d 351, 358-359, 374- 375 in action by riparian owners, acknowledging appropriator use that causes substantial damage to land with paramount right is an impairment . . . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="59+Cal.4th+662"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Peabody v. Time (2012) 59 Cal.4th 662</a>

  • In re Brace: Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2014) , fn. 1 (Peabody) example and explanation of rule 8.548(f)(5) in context.) The answer determines how much property a bankruptcy trustee can reach to satisfy a spouse’s d... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+1290"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1290</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Superior Court (2008) an individual not named in an initial pleading is not a party to an action; (Apostolos v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="227+Cal.App.4th+428"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Peake v. Underwood (2013) 227 Cal.App.4th 428</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Underwood (2014) –444 (Peake) party’s novel 3 That is not a concern in this case, where multiple concerned individuals sought to protect Anne. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="202+Cal.App.4th+1333"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pearson v. Superior (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Superior Court (2012) , fn. 2 (Pearson); Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) Âś 12:579; see Burge v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.5th+546"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pena v. Dey (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 546</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Dey (2019) (Pena); Burch v. George (1994) .) “The paramount rule in construing a trust . . . instrument is to determine intent from the instrument itself and in accordance with applicable law. [context]
  • Haggerty v. Thornton: Dey (2019) , where the court cited King and found that the method of amendment described in the trust instrument governed. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="7+Cal.4th+246"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pena v. Dey (1993) 7 Cal.4th 246</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: App.5th 546, 551 (Pena); Burch v. George (1994) .) “The paramount rule in construing a trust . . . instrument is to determine intent from the instrument itself and in accordance with applicable law. [context]
  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: George (1994) [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: George (1994) –255.) “ ‘The answer cannot be sought in a vacuum, but must be gleaned from a consideration of the purposes that the testator sought to attain’ ” by the instrument in question. (Id. [context]
  • Donkin v. Donkin: George (1994) [context]
  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: George (1994) interpretation of a trust instrument presents a question of law unless interpretation turns on a conflict in the extrinsic evidence. [context]
  • Wilkin v. Nelson: George (1994) , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Estate of Rossi (2006) 138 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.App.4th+751"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pendleton (1997) 62 Cal.App.4th 751</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: More importantly, the opinion in Pendleton 1 endorsed the power of the court to declare premarital spousal support agreements unconscionable at the time of enforcement. 32 In Pendleton 1, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="49+Cal.4th+846"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Alexander (2009) 49 Cal.4th 846</a>

  • People v. Washington: Alexander (2010) , fn. 14 defendant’s failure to “raise his equal protection claim in the trial court” forfeited the argument; People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="247+Cal.App.4th+1438"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Alexander (2014) 247 Cal.App.4th 1438</a>

  • People v. Washington: Dunley (2016) “an equal protection claim may be forfeited if it is raised for the first time on appeal”.) In his reply brief, Washington contends forfeiture does not apply because his equal protection... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.4th+653"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. American Contractors Indemnity Company (2003) 33 Cal.4th 653</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.: American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) .) If the appearance period expires and the bail forfeiture has not been set aside, the court must enter a summary judgment against the surety in accordance w... [context]
  • Schrage v. Schrage: American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) (American Contractors); Adoption of Myah M. (2011) 201 Cal. [context]
  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) - 661 (American Contractors); People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="238+Cal.App.4th+1041"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. American Contractors Indemnity Company (2014) 238 Cal.App.4th 1041</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.: American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2015) “A summary judgment in a bail forfeiture is a consent judgment entered without a hearing and the proceedings are not adversarial.”. [context]
  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2015) “ ‘summary judgment in a bail forfeiture is a consent judgment entered without a hearing and the proceedings are not adversarial’ ”.) II. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="201+Cal.App.4th+1518"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. American Contractors Indemnity Company (2012) 201 Cal.App.4th 1518</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) (American Contractors); Adoption of Myah M. (2011) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="242+Cal.App.4th+991"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. American Contractors Indemnity Company (2014) 242 Cal.App.4th 991</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: Co. (2015) .) If the court fails to enter summary judgment “ ‘within 90 days after the date upon which it may first be entered, the right to do so expires and the bail is exonerated.’ ” (§ 1306, subd. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.4th+543"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Anderson (2000) 25 Cal.4th 543</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.4th+545"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Anzalone (2011) 56 Cal.4th 545</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Anzalone (2013) .) “ ‘Plainly, not every violation of the state and federal right to a jury trial is a structural defect requiring reversal without regard to whether the defendant suffered actual prej... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.4th+295"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Arias (1992) 5 Cal.4th 295</a>

  • In re E.L.: 3 Aida R.’s request to take additional evidence dated April 11, 2022, is granted. 10 reasonably possible.” (in re James F. (2008) .) The automatic reversal rule gives rise to the “very evil the Legisl... [context]
  • In re Samuel A.: App.3d 1, 4 court has discretion to deny attorney’s request to withdraw when withdrawal would result in an injustice or cause undue delay; see generally In re Jesusa V. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.4th+950"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Arriaga (2012) 58 Cal.4th 950</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="85+Cal.App.4th+13"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Baniqued (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 13</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Baniqued (2000) .) DISPOSITION The petition for writ of mandate is denied. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.4th+1081"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Barrett (2010) 54 Cal.4th 1081</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Barrett (2012) .) “If there is such a disparity, then we must proceed to decide which level of scrutiny to apply.” (People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.App.5th+91"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Barrett (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 91</a>

  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Yanez (2019) .) In Bryan S., which examined whether proposed LPS conservatees have the right to refuse to testify in a conservatorship trial, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 1... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="71+Cal.2d+954"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">71 Cal.2d 954</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.3d+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Black (1981) 32 Cal.3d 1</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: Black (1982) 32 Cal.3d 1, 5.) “ ‘While the interpretation of similar words in other statutes is not controlling, such interpretation is helpful in arriving at the legislative intent. Citations. . . . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.5th+622"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Blackburn (2016) 3 Cal.5th 622</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: T. (2017) , we explained that a parent’s inability to supervise or protect a child need not amount to “neglect” or involve neglectful conduct to satisfy Welfare and Institutions 25 Guardianship of SAU... [context]
  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: T. (2017) ; see also In re Ethan C. (2012) −628.) S. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.4th+1113"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Blackburn (2013) 61 Cal.4th 1113</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.4th+798"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Braxton (2003) 34 Cal.4th 798</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: Braxton (2004) –814 failure to press for a ruling results in forfeiture of issue on appeal.) Citing Kennedy v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="201+Cal.App.4th+1197"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Braxton (2012) 201 Cal.App.4th 1197</a>

  • Herren v. George S.: Eldridge (2011) (Kennedy), Herren appears to suggest Webb should have been disqualified sua sponte, 27 despite her failure to seek his disqualification. [context]
  • Doe v. Yim: Eldridge (2011) (Kennedy).) California’s current version of the advocate-witness rule provides, “A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness unless:... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.3d+1281"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Brown (1986) 43 Cal.3d 1281</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) He has not done so; and (2) We are unable to rely on the federal court’s order because (a) the portion relied upon was vacated by the federal court’s order on recon... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.4th+335"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Bryant (2013) 60 Cal.4th 335</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) opponent has burden to rebut presumption that spousal communication is confidential by preponderance of evidence; Blau v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="340+U.S.+332"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">340 U.S. 332</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.3d+898"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Burton (1970) 5 Cal.3d 898</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.App.5th+222"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Bush (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 222</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: Superior Court (2017) .) Writ review may be appropriate where “conflicting trial court interpretations of the law require a resolution of the conflict.” (Omaha Indemnity Co. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.5th+1004"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Canizales (2017) 5 Cal.5th 1004</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Superior Court (2018) (Bianka M.).) As amended, the law permits an immigrant “ ‘child’ ” — a term defined as “an unmarried person under twenty-one years of age” (8 U. [context]
  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Superior Court (2018) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="242+Cal.App.4th+529"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Canty (2014) 242 Cal.App.4th 529</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Under In re Marriage of Smith (2015) , such loans were to be treated as gifts, and the court considered them funds accessible to Kim. (c) Reasonableness of Fees. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.4th+1114"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Carbajal (1994) 10 Cal.4th 1114</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Carbajal (1995) .)7 7 Insofar as they are inconsistent with our holding, we also disapprove Ian J. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="59+Cal.4th+924"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Carrasco (2012) 59 Cal.4th 924</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.4th+5"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Clark (1994) 11 Cal.4th 5</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.4th+901"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Cole (2006) 42 Cal.4th 901</a>

  • In re E.L.: 3 Aida R.’s request to take additional evidence dated April 11, 2022, is granted. 10 reasonably possible.” (in re James F. (2008) .) The automatic reversal rule gives rise to the “very evil the Legisl... [context]
  • In re Z.O.: 7 residential address in Orange, California. But this address was clearly no longer valid because mother was incarcerated at the time, and everyone, including the court, was aware of this. Indeed... [context]
  • In re Samuel A.: App.4th 661, the court of appeal held that, before appointing a guardian ad litem for a parent in a dependency proceeding, the juvenile court must hold an informal hearing and provide a parent with an... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.4th+297"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Collins (2000) 26 Cal.4th 297</a>

  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: Collins (2001) (Collins), in which the Supreme Court concluded the trial court improperly induced the defendant to waive his right to a jury trial, rendering his jury trial waiver involuntary. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.4th+145"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145</a>

  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: 10 the language governs.” (Day, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 272.) However, if there is ambiguity, we may “resort to extrinsic sources, including the ostensible objects to be achieved... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.App.5th+744"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Craine (2018) 35 Cal.App.5th 744</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.4th+352"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Crittenden (1998) 21 Cal.4th 352</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.5th+961"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Daniels (2016) 3 Cal.5th 961</a>

  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: Daniels (2017) -993 (lead opn. of CuĂŠllar, J.) “We continue to eschew any rigid rubric for trial courts to follow in order to decide whether to accept a defendant’s relinquishment of this right.”... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.4th+353"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Davis (2012) 57 Cal.4th 353</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: Davis (2013) (Davis).) Citing Davis, Lynne contends it is not reasonable to infer from these facts that she commenced this litigation for an improper purpose, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.3d+441"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Dillon (1982) 34 Cal.3d 441</a>

  • People v. Braum: Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 455–456, 477–478 . . . cruel or unusual punishment).” (Sainez, supra, 77 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="93+Cal.App.4th+916"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Donaldson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 916</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Conduct, rule 3.7, com. 2.)3 California courts have agreed that one purpose of the advocate-witness rule is to prevent factfinder confusion regarding whether an advocate-witness’s statement is to be c... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="97+Cal.App.4th+1448"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Duran (2001) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.4th+580"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Eubanks (1995) 14 Cal.4th 580</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="220+Cal.App.4th+915"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Eubanks (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 915</a>

  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: A. (2013) , fn. 1.) We exercise that discretion here. 2Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Probate Code. 2 authority to do so. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.4th+1223"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Fairbank (1996) 16 Cal.4th 1223</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="73+Cal.App.5th+33"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Financial (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 33</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.App.5th+1013"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Financial (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1013</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.5th+35"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Financial (2016) 2 Cal.5th 35</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.: Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2016) .) If the defendant subsequently fails to appear as required and the failure to appear is not excused, the court must declare the bail forfeited. (§ 1305, [context]
  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2016) (Financial Casualty).) If the defendant “fails without sufficient excuse to appear as required, the court must declare the bail forfeited.” (People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.App.5th+343"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 343</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC (2017) .) (c) Improper “Odious Comparison” Standard Kim argues the trial court’s use of the “odious comparison” standard is based upon an unpublished decision... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="104+Cal.App.4th+721"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. First (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 721</a>

  • People v. Braum: First Federal Credit Corp. (2002) .) To the extent it was Braum’s burden to show an inability to pay the penalties, he failed to carry that burden because his opposition did not raise the issue... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="30+Cal.4th+1059"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Flores (2002) 30 Cal.4th 1059</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.App.5th+385"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Ford (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 385</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="173+Cal.App.4th+420"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Foster (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 420</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Southern Pacific Latin American Dist. of the Assemblies of God (2009) (Iglesia), a case which did not involve writ proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure section 1086, the court held, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.4th+1070"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Garcia (2005) 39 Cal.4th 1070</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.4th+1415"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Garcia (2012) 58 Cal.4th 1415</a>

  • People v. Washington: Scott (2014) “It is a settled principle of statutory construction that the Legislature ‘“is deemed to be aware of statutes and judicial decisions already in existence... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="216+Cal.App.4th+591"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Gutierrez (2012) 216 Cal.App.4th 591</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: Dow Chemical Canada ULC (2013) absent exceptional circumstances, factual determinations should be left to the trial court.) Section 11704 provides the trial court with discretion to order an evidentia... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.4th+1110"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Hall (2007) 45 Cal.4th 1110</a>

  • In re E.L.: .5 “requires the court to consider ‘all factors relating to the best interest of the child,’ .. . including the circumstances leading to guardianship, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="268+Cal.App.2d+774"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Hopper (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 774</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A judgment may not be reversed unless the appellate court reviews the entire trial record; a party must demonstrate that any alleged omission constitutes a material error within that complete record.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.4th+266"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266</a>

  • Searles v. Archangel: Hull (1991) .) As to the later order, Searles contended Judge Dorothy Shuba, who presided at the November 29, 2018 hearing and denied her renewed motion, did not give her a fair hearing. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="49+Cal.4th+301"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Indiana (2009) 49 Cal.4th 301</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="93+Cal.App.4th+993"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Jeffery (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Jackson (2001) (ComputerXpress).) The term “ ‘prevailing defendant,’ ” as used in section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1), is not defined, and it is unstated whether a defendant who prevails on some, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.5th+475"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Johnson (2019) 8 Cal.5th 475</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Johnson (2019) .) We review the court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. (People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="59+Cal.4th+258"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Johnson (2012) 59 Cal.4th 258</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Goldsmith (2014) .) “Specifically, we will not disturb the trial court’s ruling ‘except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.5th+541"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Johnson (2018) 6 Cal.5th 541</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: Johnson (2018) “A defendant may not force the substitution of counsel by manufacturing a conflict or a breakdown in the relationship through his own conduct. Citations. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.3d+557"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Johnson (1979) 26 Cal.3d 557</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.App.5th+802"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Jordan (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 802</a>

  • Amundson v. Catello: A. (2016) (Mendoza).) “To demonstrate the requisite standing, the siblings were required to allege facts showing they had a ‘ “beneficial interest . . . that is concrete and actual, [context]
  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: A. (2016) standing to challenge wrongful foreclosure; Boorstein v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.3d+245"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Kunkin (1972) 9 Cal.3d 245</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 250.) The Chamberlain court concluded “the standard of proof on review of factual determinations of a tribunal is not a function of the standard of proof in the original pr... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.3d+421"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Kunkin (1969) 3 Cal.3d 421</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Reilly (1970) 3 Cal.3d 421, 425 . . . , we emphasized that reasonableness was the ultimate standard under the substantial evidence rule. ‘The appellate court must determine whether a reasonable trier... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="204+Cal.App.4th+1264"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Kurtenbach (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1264</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Kurtenbach (2012) .) Because the resolution of this appeal turns on open questions of 10 The flurry of motions filed in connection with Royals’s motion to dismiss includes a motion from Lu arguing tha... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.4th+999"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Leal (2003) 33 Cal.4th 999</a>

  • Searles v. Archangel: Leal (2004) “‘It is our task to construe, not to amend, the statute. . . . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.App.5th+1144"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Lexington (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1144</a>

  • People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation: Corp. (2016) , “a bail bond is a contract between the court and a surety whereby the surety promises that a defendant released from custody will appear in court when ordered. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.4th+986"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Mai (2012) 57 Cal.4th 986</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: Mai (2013) “an uncooperative attitude is not, in and of itself, substantial evidence of incompetence”; People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.4th+856"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Mai (2010) 52 Cal.4th 856</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: Clark (2011) “‘the test, in a section 1368 proceeding, is competency to cooperate, not cooperation’”; People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.3d+118"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Marsden (1969) 2 Cal.3d 118</a>

  • People v. Washington: Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. [context]
  • In re Samuel A.: Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 addresses the circumstances under which a criminal defendant has a right to have his or her appointed counsel replaced and the procedures to be used by the trial court in d... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.4th+1172"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. McDonald (2008) 47 Cal.4th 1172</a>

  • People v. Washington: McKee (2010) - 1195 (McKee) because SVPA is not punitive, it does not violate ex post facto clause; People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="207+Cal.App.4th+1325"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. McDonald (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1325</a>

  • People v. Washington: 9 On remand, the trial court held a 21-day evidentiary hearing with expert testimony and documentary evidence on whether the disparate treatment of SVP’s could be justified. (People v. McKee (2012) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.4th+856"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Mendoza (2013) 62 Cal.4th 856</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: Mendoza (2016) “voluntary barriers to communication with counsel on the part of a defendant who was able to cooperate but elected not to do not demonstrate incompetence” under Penal 5 Code section 136... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.5th+181"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Mickel (2016) “Ordinarily, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”; Shih v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.App.5th+1063"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Mickel (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1063</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Starbucks Corp. (2020) , fn. 4 the plaintiff “forfeited this argument . . . by failing to raise it in her opening brief”.) II. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="171+Cal.+649"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">171 Cal. 649</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="113+Cal.+467"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">113 Cal. 467</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Waterhouse (1896) ; Lawyer v. Los Angeles Pacific Co., supra, 23 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.App.5th+440"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Moine (2020) 62 Cal.App.5th 440</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Moine (2021) ), and, as the statutory text indicates, such discretion is to be guided by the court’s determination regarding the adequacy of the representation of the minor’s interest in the absence o... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="63+Cal.4th+399"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Morales (2014) 63 Cal.4th 399</a>

  • People v. Washington: Morales (2016) ; accord, McKee, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1202; Cooley v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="29+Cal.4th+228"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Morales (2001) 29 Cal.4th 228</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.2d+482"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">60 Cal.2d 482</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="144+Cal.+48"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">144 Cal. 48</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Moran (1904) ) or weight of the evidence rules (see, e.g., People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="151+Cal.+592"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">151 Cal. 592</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Grill (1907) , overruled on another ground in People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.3d+671"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Morris (1977) 21 Cal.3d 671</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: United California Bank (1978) 21 Cal.3d 671, 701 (Sun ‘n Sand) bank customer’s failure “to examine bank statements and returned checks for alterations or forgeries”; Elsinore Union Elementary Sch. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.3d+379"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Mosher (1969) 1 Cal.3d 379</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Mosher (1969) 1 Cal.3d 379, 395 . . . , we observed that “this court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact t... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.App.4th+713"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Mowatt (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 713</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: Nevertheless, we are bound to apply the law (People v. Mowatt (1997) ) and, under the substantial evidence standard, our role is circumscribed. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="244+Cal.App.4th+1294"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Navarro (2014) 244 Cal.App.4th 1294</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="244+Cal.App.4th+12"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Navarro (2014) 244 Cal.App.4th 12</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Department of Fish & Wildlife (2016) .)58 58 Abatti views the issue of whether the 2013 EDP is new as a disputed factual matter; even if that were so, it would not change our conclusion in his favor. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Department of Fish & Wildlife (2016) .)58 58 Abatti views the issue of whether the 2013 EDP is new as a disputed factual matter; even if that were so, it would not change our conclusion in his favor. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.App.5th+300"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. North (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 300</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.App.5th+111"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. North (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 111</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Mansdorf (2016) (Torjesen).) “Subject matter jurisdiction . . . is the power of the court over a cause of action or to act in a particular way.” (Greener v. Workers’ Comp. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.5th+931"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Ollo (2018) 6 Cal.5th 931</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.4th+200"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Otto (2000) 26 Cal.4th 200</a>

  • People v. Washington: App.4th at page 452 that there is no constitutional right in an SVP proceeding to a jury trial, “because civil commitment involves a significant deprivation of liberty... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.App.5th+1064"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Overstock (2016) 12 Cal.App.5th 1064</a>

  • People v. Braum: Com, Inc. (2017) –1088 trial court imposed a daily penalty of $2,000 for a total of $6,828,000 in civil penalties under Business and Professions Code sections 17206, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.5th+1032"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Page (2017) 4 Cal.5th 1032</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: State Water Resources Control Board (2018) [context]
  • People v. Washington: B. Standard of Review “We review questions of statutory construction de novo. Our primary task ‘in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.3d+894"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Pieters (1989) 52 Cal.3d 894</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Pieters (1991) 52 Cal.3d 894, 907.) Federal statutes and regulations do not specify a burden of proof to be used by state courts making SIJ predicate findings. (See 8 U. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.4th+59"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Prunty (2013) 62 Cal.4th 59</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: Prunty (2015) .) Requiring a physical alteration to the will to find a revocation is an ancient concept, perhaps in need of revisiting. (See Revoking Wills, supra, 97 Notre Dame L. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="200+Cal.App.4th+712"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Ramirez (2012) 200 Cal.App.4th 712</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.4th+813"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Rices (2013) 61 Cal.4th 813</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Faerber (2015) (DKN).) These elements are conjunctive, meaning that if just one is unsatisfied, issue preclusion cannot apply. [context]
  • Hudson v. Foster: Campbell (1994) extrinsic mistake.) In order to set aside a final order based on extrinsic fraud, “the moving party must demonstrate that he or she has a meritorious case... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.5th+219"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Rodas (2018) 6 Cal.5th 219</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.4th+587"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A lay witness may testify about a person’s mental condition, competency, or health based on observations the witness personally made, even though the witness is not a medical expert.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.4th+296"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Rogers (2013) 57 Cal.4th 296</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A trustee may bring a lawsuit concerning trust property in the trustee’s own name without having to identify or describe the trust in the pleadings;

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.4th+386"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Romero (2007) 44 Cal.4th 386</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: App.4th at pp. 968–969.) 6 The distinction is a critical one, as “forfeiture results from the failure to invoke a right, while waiver denotes an express relinquishment of a known right... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="133+Cal.App.4th+447"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Rowell (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 447</a>

  • People v. Washington: Rowell (2005) (Rowell), in concluding the SVPA does not require a trial court to take a personal waiver from a defendant of his or her right to a jury trial... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.4th+238"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Rowland (1992) , fn. 6 (Rowland) declining notice of irrelevant court records.) We grant judicial notice as to certain documents, as identified post. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Rowland (1992) , fn. 6 (Rowland) declining notice of irrelevant court records.) We grant judicial notice as to certain documents, as identified post. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="203+Cal.App.4th+696"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Runyan (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 696</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: App.4th 36, 53.) “ ‘In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike, judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.4th+703"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Safety (2013) 62 Cal.4th 703</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) [context]
  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: Safety National Casualty Corp. (2016) (Safety National Casualty).) For forfeiture of a bond exceeding $400, the surety has a 185-day “appearance period in which to either produce the criminal defendan... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="114+Cal.+216"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">114 Cal. 216</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Sanders (1896) “the weight of the evidence . . . was exclusively for the jury” such that “how much or how little importance should be attached to it was for the jury alone to say”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.4th+240"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240</a>

  • Conservatorship of R.J.: A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may be dismissed solely on the ground that the defendant has not shown prejudice, without the court having to evaluate whether counsel’s performance was de...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.4th+580"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580</a>

  • Conservatorship of R.J.: A claim of error that was not timely objected to or preserved at trial is forfeited and cannot be raised on appeal. appellate review is limited to issues that were properly raised and recorded in the...
  • People v. Braum: Saunders (1993) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="29+Cal.4th+954"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Seneca (2001) 29 Cal.4th 954</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: Seneca Ins. Co. (2003) .) Additionally, the preference for avoiding forfeitures “does not exist in a vacuum, and is to be balanced against the counterpresumption that ‘when there is a breach of . . . [context]
  • People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation: Seneca Insurance Company (2003) a rule of criminal procedure is not a bail forfeiture law entitled to be construed in favor of a surety even if the rule could have the effect of exonerating bail. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.5th+151"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Sivongxxay (2016) 3 Cal.5th 151</a>

  • People v. Washington: Sivongxxay (2017) .) However, an SVP proceeding is a civil commitment proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. (Moore v. Superior Court (2010) (Moore) “SVP proceedings are civil, not criminal, [context]
  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: Sivongxxay (2017) (Sivongxxay); accord, People v. [context]
  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Sivongxxay (2017) addressing statutory error under state law and rejecting criminal defendant’s argument that advisement error required automatic reversal... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.4th+802"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Sivongxxay (2009) 50 Cal.4th 802</a>

  • People v. Washington: Sivongxxay (2017) .) However, an SVP proceeding is a civil commitment proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. (Moore v. Superior Court (2010) (Moore) “SVP proceedings are civil, not criminal, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.4th+609"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Sivongxxay (2013) 61 Cal.4th 609</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.4th+110"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Sloan (2006) 42 Cal.4th 110</a>

  • People v. Braum: “The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ‘no person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="192+Cal.+659"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">192 Cal. 659</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="118+Cal.App.4th+204"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Smith (2003) 118 Cal.App.4th 204</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375, 383.) “Malice ‘may range anywhere from open hostility to indifference. Citations.’ ” (Soukup, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 292. [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Lawyers Title Co. (2004) .) Thus, the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis is a “summary-judgment-like procedure at an early stage of the litigation.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.4th+733"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Smith (2004) 37 Cal.4th 733</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="132+Cal.App.4th+1537"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1537</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="81+Cal.App.5th+355"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Stamps (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 355</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.4th+858"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Standish (2005) 38 Cal.4th 858</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Standish (2006) “ ‘shall’ ” is presumptively “mandatory and not permissive”.) When the facts a petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence support SIJ predicate findings, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.4th+764"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Stanley (1994) 10 Cal.4th 764</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Stanley (1995) .) “An appellant cannot rely on incorporation of trial court papers, but must tender arguments in the appellate briefs.” (Paterno v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.4th+1164"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Superior (1992) 4 Cal.4th 1164</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Superior Court (Lavi) (1993) Legislative Counsel’s Digest is indicative of legislative intent.) The Law Revision Commission’s 1986 report similarly summarized the proposed legislation: “Under general... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.5th+1127"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Superior Court (Broderick) (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 1127</a>

  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (2018) plaintiff may meet burden of demonstrating an amendment would cure a pleading’s legal defect for the first time on appeal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="120+Cal.App.4th+900"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Superior Court (Williams) (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 900</a>

  • In re Z.O.: 12 Z.O. was not eligible for ICWA status. On the basis of this report, the juvenile court ruled, on May 6, 2021, that ICWA did not apply to the matter. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.5th+266"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Tirado (2022) 14 Cal.5th 266</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.App.4th+1084"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Torrez (1985) 31 Cal.App.4th 1084</a>

  • Conservatorship of R.J.: Counsel is not obligated to file futile motions or engage in idle actions merely to appear diligent; a lawyer’s performance is judged by whether it was reasonable,

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="15+Cal.5th+520"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Tran (2023) 15 Cal.5th 520</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.4th+1160"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Tran (2013) 61 Cal.4th 1160</a>

  • People v. Washington: Tran (2015) (Tran) considered almost identical language (requiring a jury trial advisement and express jury waiver by the defendant) in the statutory scheme for extending the involuntary commitment of... [context]
  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: Tran (2015) trial court’s acceptance of invalid jury trial waiver in commitment proceeding for defendant who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity “is not susceptible to ordinary harmless error ana... [context]
  • Conservatorship of C.O.: L., supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 148.) It reasoned that “a client who tells his appointed attorney he is unwilling to attend the hearing and does not wish to contest a proposed LPS conservatorship may reas... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="88+Cal.+233"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">88 Cal. 233</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Travers (1891) addressing “the difference in the weight of evidence required in civil and criminal cases”; People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="80+Cal.+160"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">80 Cal. 160</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Bushton (1889) “the well-settled rule that a defendant shall not be convicted unless the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt applies to the whole... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.5th+786"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Turner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 786</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Turner (2020) “weight” in relation to evidence “describes the degree to which the jury or fact finder finds the evidence probative”.) 26 mean preponderance of the evidence by implicitly incorporating... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="210+Cal.App.4th+1423"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. United (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1423</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.5th+744"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Valli (2016) 3 Cal.5th 744</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.5th+968"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Vasquez (2016) 2 Cal.5th 968</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Scoreinc.com (2017) .) The “prevailing” party is the party who recovered greater relief in the action on the contract. (Civ. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.5th+16"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Veamatahau (2019) 9 Cal.5th 16</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Veamatahau (2020) -36; People v. Gomez (2018) , 307.) To paraphrase the high court in Jackson, supra, 443 U. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.5th+243"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Veamatahau (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Veamatahau (2020) -36; People v. Gomez (2018) , 307.) To paraphrase the high court in Jackson, supra, 443 U. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.2d+818"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">46 Cal.2d 818</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson); see also In re D’Anthony D. (2014) 230 Cal. [context]
  • Marriage of Zucker: Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) Kim asserts that there was no evidence Weaver had a “consistent, semiautomatic response” to a repeated situation, namely, the execution of PMAs. [context]
  • Chui v. Chui: Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.) We therefore conclude that, if the court erred by ruling that Christine lacked standing to oppose the petition, the error was harmless. 3. [context]
  • In re Samuel A.: Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome), the more exacting standard for federal constitutional error of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U. [context]
  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. Under that rubric, we must determine whether it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to C. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="230+Cal.App.4th+292"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Watson (2013) 230 Cal.App.4th 292</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson); see also In re D’Anthony D. (2014) applying Watson standard to juvenile court error in failing to make statutorily required findings.) 26 Notably... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="386+U.S.+18"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">386 U.S. 18</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome), the more exacting standard for federal constitutional error of Chapman v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.4th+1056"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Weaver (2010) 53 Cal.4th 1056</a>

  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: Weaver (2012) -1074, the lack of an advisement that a defendant has the right to participate in jury selection does not automatically render a jury trial advisement invalid. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="143+Cal.App.2d+402"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Webb (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 402</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A lay witness may testify about a person’s mental condition, competency, or health when the witness has personal knowledge of the facts, and such testimony is admissible without the need for expert qu...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.2d+651"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">53 Cal.2d 651</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.: Wilcox (1960) 53 Cal.2d 651, Surety asserts that “a motion to vacate forfeiture commences an action for relief from forfeiture that is a final determination in a matter collateral to the criminal pros... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.4th+148"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Williams (1997) 17 Cal.4th 148</a>

  • K.R. v. Superior Court: Williams (1998) , fn. 6), and there appear to be no disputed facts at issue, we choose to exercise our discretion to address the merits of the claim notwithstanding K. [context]
  • Conservatorship of C.O.: Williams (1998) , fn. 6.) The forfeiture doctrine is not absolute, however, as we are “generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party.” (Ibid. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="58+Cal.4th+197"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Williams (2012) 58 Cal.4th 197</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Williams (2013) –271; “Because we find the statute inapplicable, we need not and do not decide the other issues raised by the parties regarding” its interpretation; cf. §§ 1821, subd. (c), 2340. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.4th+556"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Williams (1991) 2 Cal.4th 556</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Williams (2013) –271; “Because we find the statute inapplicable, we need not and do not decide the other issues raised by the parties regarding” its interpretation; cf. §§ 1821, subd. (c), 2340. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.5th+697"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Woodruff (2018) 5 Cal.5th 697</a>

  • Conservatorship of R.J.: Ineffective assistance of counsel is established only when the defendant demonstrates that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this deficient performance...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.3d+863"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. Wright (1987) 47 Cal.3d 863</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.App.5th+863"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">People v. the (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 863</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: Co. (2017) -880.) Finally, “the policy disfavoring forfeiture cannot overcome the plainly intended meaning of a statute.” (People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="66+Cal.App.4th+1138"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1138</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: Superior Court (1998) [context]
  • Guardianship of A.H.: Superior Court (1998) -1147.) The trial court’s inherent power “‘ . . . should never be directed in such manner as to prevent a full and fair opportunity to the parties to present all competent, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="156+Cal.+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">156 Cal. 1</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="949+F.3d+865"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">949 F.3d 865</a>

  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Cuccinelli (4th Cir. 2020) 949 F.3d 865, 874.) The phrases, “due to” in the federal statute (8 U. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+1239"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Perrin v. Lee (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1239</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="116+Cal.App.4th+6"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Perrin v. Lee (2003) 116 Cal.App.4th 6</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="138+Cal.App.4th+1215"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Peterson v. John Crane, Inc. (2005) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Services, Inc. (2006) –1220 (Stevenson Real Estate).) 19 “Because a motion for judgment on the pleadings is similar to a general demurrer, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="571+U.S.+117"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2013) 571 U.S. 117</a>

  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: Bauman (2014) .) Personal jurisdiction can be all-purpose (also called “general”) or case-linked (also called “specific”). (Bristol-Myers, supra, 137 S. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="220+Cal.App.4th+1270"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pfeifer v. John (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="212+Cal.App.4th+139"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pfeifer v. John (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="205+Cal.App.4th+48"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pfeifer v. John (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 48</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="183+Cal.App.4th+1405"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pfeifer v. John (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1405</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.App.5th+844"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Phillips v. Campbell (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 844</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Campbell (2016) .) “Normally, we must presume the trial court was aware of and understood the scope of its authority and discretion under the applicable law. Citations.” (Barriga v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.App.4th+1093"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pierce v. Lyman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1093</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="22+Cal.App.4th+743"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pillsbury v. Karmgard (1993) 22 Cal.App.4th 743</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Karmgard (1994) absent showing of impropriety by trustee in failing to initiate malicious prosecution action itself, trust beneficiary lacked standing to sue third party that had previously sued only... [context]
  • Estate of Tarlow: Karmgard (1994) involved a trust beneficiary who brought a civil suit for malicious prosecution. 8 establish his standing under section 11700. [context]
  • Turner v. Victoria: The plaintiff 16 bears the burden of proving an amendment could cure the defect.” (Novartis, at p. 162.) “ ‘ “The question of standing to sue is one of the right to relief... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.4th+524"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pineda v. Williams (2009) 51 Cal.4th 524</a>

  • Ring v. Harmon: Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. (2011) .) In addition, we consider judicially noticed matters. (Committee for Green Foothills v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="48+Cal.4th+32"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pineda v. Williams (2008) 48 Cal.4th 32</a>

  • Ring v. Harmon: Santa Clara Board of Supervisors (2010) .) We accept all properly pleaded material facts but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Evans v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.App.5th+730"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 730</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Strazicich (2019) “The modern trend is toward favoring the decedent’s intent over formalities”.) Gary argues Duke does not apply here because the devise in the pour-over will is general and not specif... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="55+Cal.App.4th+1393"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Placer v. Andrade (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1393</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Andrade (1997) “The assumption underlying these calculations is that past income is a good measure of the future income from which the parent must pay support”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="217+Cal.App.4th+533"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Plascencia v. City of Anaheim (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 533</a>

  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: Thus, the parties agree that the present statutory scheme, effective in 2010, applies here. (§ 21315.) 9 applying de novo review to interpretation of § 16061.8.) II. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="187+Cal.+443"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">187 Cal. 443</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Vincent (1921) 22 (Planter) “Respondent in her brief does not mention the point of defect of parties raised by the demurrer, hence it will be regarded as abandoned . . . .”.) Put another way... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.3d+1051"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: The appellant must affirmatively show that any alleged error was prejudicial—that is, that the error affected the outcome of the case.
  • Conservatorship of Farrant: City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051, 1069.) An assessment of prejudice cannot be made here because appellant did not make an offer of proof in the probate court. (See People v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.App.5th+219"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Powell v. Tagami (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 219</a>

  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Tagami (2018) reasonable cause requirement in Probate Code is evaluated under an objective standard of what any reasonable person would have done; Monarch v. [context]
  • Bruno v. Hopkins: Tagami (2018) [context]
  • Jones v. Goodman: Tagami (2018) -237 (Powell).) To the extent a trial court’s ruling is based on factual determinations, we review the record for substantial evidence. (Carpenter & Zuckerman, LLP v. [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: Tagami (2018) .) This is “generally considered the most difficult standard of review to meet, as it should be, because it is not *See footnote, ante, page 1. 32. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.App.5th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Prang v. Los (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 1</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+480"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Prang v. Los (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 480</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: County of Los Angeles (2011) , fn. 6 equitable estoppel.) Nor does Janine explain how she was prejudiced or relied to her detriment where any delay by Ali merely gave her more time to administer Ramse... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="179+Cal.App.4th+909"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Presta v. Tepper (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 909</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="192+Cal.App.4th+1136"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Price v. Starbucks (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1136</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Starbucks Corp. (2011) –1143 deprivation of information, by itself, is not a cognizable injury under former Labor Code section 226.)16 Limon has failed to allege any concrete injury in connection with... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="195+Cal.App.4th+265"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265</a>

  • Jones v. Goodman: P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) .) A motion is not a complaint, or any other type of pleading. (Code Civ. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="180+Cal.+523"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Products v. MacDonald 180 Cal. 523</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: French (1919) .) Bewley does not actually raise this argument. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.4th+1226"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton (1994) 10 Cal.4th 1226</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.App.4th+1542"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Properties v. Lyon (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Lyon/Copley Corona Associates (1996) , fn. 17 denying a request to augment the record with irrelevant material; Carleton v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.App.4th+745"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Properties v. Lyon (1992) 14 Cal.App.4th 745</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Tortosa (1993) , fn. 5 same.) For the above reasons, the motion to augment is denied. 9. B. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.App.5th+1159"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Proposition L v. City of Pomona (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1159</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.2d+365"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">12 Cal.2d 365</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Zumwalt (1938) 12 Cal.2d 365, 368.) The Court disagreed that bondholders could be exclusive beneficiaries and thus rejected partition of district land as a remedy (Clough, at pp. 388-389)... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Zumwalt (1938) 12 Cal.2d 365, 368.) The Court disagreed that bondholders could be exclusive beneficiaries and thus rejected partition of district land as a remedy (Clough, at pp. 388-389)... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.App.5th+1086"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1086</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="174+Cal.+521"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Purdy v. Johnson (1917) 174 Cal. 521</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A trustee must take reasonable steps to enforce and collect trust assets, and is liable for any loss of those assets if the failure to collect is attributable to the trustee’s fault.
  • Estate of Ashlock: Johnson (1917) (Purdy), concluded it was Stacey’s burden to substantiate her accountings. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="151+Cal.+363"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">151 Cal. 363</a>

Q

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="161+Cal.App.4th+184"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 184</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (2008) .) “Additionally, judicial notice of matters upon demurrer will be dispositive in those instances where there is not... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.4th+446"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Quality Management Dist. (2010) 54 Cal.4th 446</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2012) ), we cannot draw such an inference here. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="201+Cal.App.4th+758"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Quantification Settlement Agreement Cases (2012) 201 Cal.App.4th 758</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: We reverse the judgment and writ of mandate in all other respects, and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 The District is the sole source of fresh water for the Imperial Valley... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: We reverse the judgment and writ of mandate in all other respects, and remand with directions. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 The District is the sole source of fresh water for the Imperial Valley... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.4th+26"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1997) 19 Cal.4th 26</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) , fn. 9.) “Citation to the material is sufficient.” (Ibid.) We accordingly consider the request for judicial notice as a citation to those materials that are publishe... [context]

R

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.4th+707"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2004) 37 Cal.4th 707</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) “When the Legislature has expressly declared its intent, we must accept the declaration.”.) We begin, however, with Holt v. [context]
  • People v. Braum: Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) –728 (R. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.2d+244"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">57 Cal.2d 244</a>

  • In re Brace: transact with each other, the Legislature subjects these agreements to the laws governing fraudulent transfers. (Fam. Code, §§ 851, 852.) “These Family Code provisions presuppose that, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="75+Cal.App.4th+1148"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rae v. Kritt (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1148</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Kritt (1999) ) and explicitly exercised its discretion in doing so. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="131+Cal.App.4th+621"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Raiders v. National (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: National Football League (2005) plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim for corporate mismanagement and diverting corporate assets was derivative; PacLink Communications Internat., Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="231+Cal.App.4th+134"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Railroad Co. v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc. (2013) 231 Cal.App.4th 134</a>

  • Ring v. Harmon: Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc. (2014) (Union Pacific), quoting United States v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.App.5th+667"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Raines v. Coastal (2017) 23 Cal.App.5th 667</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Coastal Pacific Food Distributors, Inc. (2018) (Raines) for the proposition that statutory “penalties” are designed to punish a wrongdoer and do not require the existence of an injury... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="81+Cal.App.4th+39"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rakestraw v. California (1999) 81 Cal.App.4th 39</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: California Physicians’ Service (2000) .) 33 Tukes has done so here (and Richard does not argue otherwise). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="200+Cal.App.4th+1470"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ramirez v. Sturdevant (2012) 200 Cal.App.4th 1470</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: County of El Dorado (2011) .) Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure part 2, title 6, chapter 3, article 1, which includes these provisions, is titled “Objections to Pleadings. [context]
  • Jones v. Goodman: County of El Dorado (2011) , fn. 12 taking judicial notice of articles of incorporation filed with California Secretary of State on appellate court’s own motion. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="223+Cal.App.4th+1434"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ramos v. Homeward (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 1434</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Homeward Residential, Inc. (2014) -1442.) Here, the trial court determined — based, it seems, solely on the proof of service — that there had not been proper service. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="242+Cal.App.4th+674"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ramos v. Westlake (2014) 242 Cal.App.4th 674</a>

  • Sachs v. Sachs: Westlake Services LLC (2015) .) Benita’s testimony that she found the Permanent Record among her father’s papers, and that the record is in her father’s hand is sufficient. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.3d+536"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Randone v. Appellate (1970) 5 Cal.3d 536</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Appellate Department (1971) 5 Cal.3d 536.) The Legislature “ ‘clearly had Randone in mind’ when drafting the current attachment statutes” (Hobbs v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.4th+975"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rappleyea v. Campbell (1993) 8 Cal.4th 975</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="60+Cal.4th+718"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rashidi v. Moser (2013) 60 Cal.4th 718</a>

  • People v. Washington: 16 similar language in the SVPA supports our conclusion the Legislature intentionally established a different framework for a defendant’s exercise of his or her right to a jury trial in an SVP proceed... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="51+Cal.4th+804"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rasmussen v. Superior (2009) 51 Cal.4th 804</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Superior Court (2011) conclusion that trial court had erroneously granted defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion did not result in a finding that the action was finally decided in the plaintiff’s favor; [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="218+Cal.App.4th+1402"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402</a>

  • Gomez v. Smith: Somebody could be more responsive, more able to attend if their pain was managed correctly.” She continued: “So I can’t tell from what’s in the record which way that would have gone. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="23+Cal.2d+336"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">23 Cal.2d 336</a>

  • Amundson v. Catello: Hayward (1943) 23 Cal.2d 336, 342), the question whether a potential heir can encumber a contingent interest vis-Ă -vis a third party is entirely distinct 11 from whether a contingent unconfirmed inter... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="131+Cal.App.4th+1491"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Regan v. Price (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1491</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: Price (2005) referee.) This class also includes public officials who are connected with the judicial process through investigating crimes and instituting criminal proceedings. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.App.4th+754"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reichardt v. Hoffman (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 754</a>

  • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety: Hoffman (1997) .) We decline to address Surety’s belatedly asserted argument. 10 In sum, we conclude Emergency rule 9 did not toll the appearance period. [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: Hoffman (1997) .) Thus, “when new arguments are raised in the reply brief, to which respondent has no opportunity to respond, we are not required to consider them.” (Baptist v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="201+Cal.App.4th+1289"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reichardt v. Hoffman (2012) 201 Cal.App.4th 1289</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: App.4th at p. 764; accord, Provost v. Regents of University of California (2011) –1295.) In the final section of her reply, Stacey contends a “rush to judgment” by the trial court “led to a miscarriag... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.4th+512"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reid v. Google (2009) 50 Cal.4th 512</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Google, Inc. (2010) .) There is a “burden on the objector to renew the objections in the appellate court.” (Ibid.) Ginsberg’s assertions that various pieces of evidence were inadmissible, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="218+Cal.App.4th+1079"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reina v. Erassaret (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Bank of America (2013) fn. 16.) Knapp is correct that Ginsberg’s amended answer does not assert Tinker’s ratification of the PMA as an affirmative defense. However, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="193+Cal.App.4th+560"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Relations v. Davis (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 560</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: Davis Moreno Construction, Inc. (2011) –571; Munoz v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.5th+254"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Review Granted (published) XX (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 254</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="65+Cal.App.4th+451"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Kosha (1998) , fn. 6.) Because it was not briefed, any issue related to whether the trial court properly denied Limon leave to amend has been abandoned. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.4th+1075"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reynolds v. Bement (2004) 36 Cal.4th 1075</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: App.4th 379, 384.) 10 The sixth cause of action (easement by estoppel) is discussed separately, post. . 28 “ ‘When a plaintiff is given the opportunity to amend his or her complaint and elects not to... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="49+Cal.4th+35"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reynolds v. Bement (2009) 49 Cal.4th 35</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: . 28 “ ‘When a plaintiff is given the opportunity to amend his or her complaint and elects not to do so, strict construction of the complaint is required... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.5th+953"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Reynolds v. Lau (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 953</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Lau (2019) same.) 22 the party has failed to read the contract before signing it.” (Stewart, supra, 134 Cal. [context]
  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Lau (2019) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="154+Cal.App.4th+949"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rice v. Center (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 949</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Center Point, Inc. (2007) ), liberally construing the facts in favor of Waste Connections. (Gerawan 7 A review of published opinions reveals only a handful of cases affirming a judgment on the pleadin... [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Center Point, Inc. (2007) ), liberally construing the facts in favor of Waste Connections. (Gerawan 7 A review of published opinions reveals only a handful of cases affirming a judgment on the pleadin... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.4th+89"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rice v. Clark (2001) 28 Cal.4th 89</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="129+Cal.App.4th+672"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rice v. Clark (2004) 129 Cal.App.4th 672</a>

  • Estate of Boyajian: Hermann (2005) –685 6 balancing factors; accord, § 86 statute supplements common law.) Robert fails to show his evidence of undue influence was not “‘“‘uncontradicted and unimpeached. [context]
  • Capra v. Capra: The probate court’s in rem jurisdiction over a decedent’s assets does not exist in the absence of a probate estate. (David v. Hermann (2005) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="81+Cal.App.4th+725"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rice v. Crow (1999) 81 Cal.App.4th 725</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Crow (2000) , 736–737, fn. 1 “A settlement which avoids trial generally does not constitute actually litigating any issues and thus prevents application of collateral estoppel”... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="110+Cal.App.4th+1161"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rice v. Crow (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1161</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Appeals Bd. (2003) , that the bare pre-trial dismissal of a lawsuit with prejudice does not result in the “actual litigation” of any issues for issue preclusion purposes. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.4th+888"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Richer v. Superior (1991) 3 Cal.4th 888</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: Howard (1992) – 899.) Former section 851.5 provided “for a hearing in the probate court to determine ownership of property ‘(i)f a person dies in possession of, or holding title to... [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: The latter efforts implicate the law of the case doctrine. “The law of the case doctrine states that when, in deciding an appeal, an appellate court ‘states in its opinion a principle or rule of law n... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.4th+223"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rights v. Mervyn (2005) 39 Cal.4th 223</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: Mervyn’s, LLC (2006) –233.) “A plaintiff may lose standing even where an actual controversy originally existed ‘but, by the passage of time or a change in circumstances, ceased to exist.’ ” (Wolf v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="65+Cal.App.5th+871"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rios v. Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="202+Cal.App.4th+660"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Association (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 660</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Section 2032 authorizes a need- based fee award even though the applicant spouse might be able to pay his or her attorney without financial assistance because the court must consider the parties’ rela... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="223+Cal.App.4th+670"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Riverside v. Horspool (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 670</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Horspool (2014) a party may appeal “only that portion of the judgment adverse to the appealing party’s interest”; In re Marriage of Hinman, supra, 6 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.App.4th+443"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Riverside v. Superior Court (1996) 54 Cal.App.4th 443</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Superior Court (1997) .) The publication must “particularly” describe the property, and must also give its street address. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.App.4th+886"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Robbins v. Blecher (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 886</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.App.5th+132"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Roberts v. United Health Care Services, Incorporated (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 132</a>

  • Conservatorship of Martha: Pure questions of law are reviewed de novo on appeal, meaning the appellate court considers them anew without deference to the trial court’s conclusions.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.App.4th+1228"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rochin v. Pat (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1228</a>

  • Roth v. Jelley: Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998) .) A void judgment “ ‘may be attacked anywhere, directly or collaterally, whenever it presents itself.’ ” (Andrews v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="87+Cal.App.4th+513"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rodas v. Spiegel (2000) 87 Cal.App.4th 513</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="136+Cal.App.4th+82"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rodgers v. Sargent (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 82</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.2d+563"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">24 Cal.2d 563</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: De Mota (1944) 24 Cal.2d 563, 571; accord, Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="218+Cal.App.4th+828"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Roesch v. De (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 828</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="219+Cal.App.4th+87"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Roldan v. Callahan (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 87</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: App.4th at p. 1588; accord Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine (2013) .) The Stewart court then cited Casey for the proposition that “a contracting party is not entitled to relief from the party’s alleged uni... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="145+Cal.App.4th+188"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ross v. Kish (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 188</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Kish (2006) if there is a conflict “as to the circumstances of the termination, the determination of the reasons underlying the dismissal is a question of fact”.) 3. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="219+Cal.App.4th+1481"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rossberg v. Bank (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="150+Cal.App.4th+210"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Roush v. Seagate (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 210</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Seagate Technology, LLC (2007) .) The attorney’s duty to uphold the integrity of the judicial process includes a more specific duty, in judicial proceedings... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.App.5th+289"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rowan v. Kirkpatrick (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 289</a>

  • People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation: Kirkpatrick (2020) .) Nothing prevented Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation from being especially vigilant of the court’s reopening date and timely filing its motion. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="198+Cal.App.4th+1337"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Roy v. Superior (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1337</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Superior Court (2011) .) “We usually ‘presume differences in language … convey differences in meaning.’ ” (Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. U. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="138+S.Ct.+2067"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">138 S.Ct. 2067</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.3d+50"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rubin v. Fuchs (1969) 1 Cal.3d 50</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Fuchs (1969) 1 Cal.3d 50, 54.) The court found that this condition of Chen’s approval was met when Chen entered into the first GAL agreement and stated that he “agrees to the terms of the Settlement A... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="81+Cal.App.4th+1131"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rubinstein v. Rubinstein (1999) 81 Cal.App.4th 1131</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Rubinstein (2000) , fn.1.) 2 “SLAPP is an acronym for ‘strategic lawsuit against public participation.’ ” (Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.App.5th+77"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rudick v. State (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 77</a>

  • People v. Philadelphia Reinsurance Corporation: Co. (2010) “The policy -9- disfavoring forfeiture cannot overcome the plainly intended meaning of a statute”; Rudick v. State Bd. of Optometry (2019) “Inconvenience or hardships, if any... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="179+Cal.App.4th+1328"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rudnick v. Rudnick (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1328</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="853+F.3d+492"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">853 F.3d 492</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.4th+1048"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rusheen v. Cohen (2004) 37 Cal.4th 1048</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Cohen (2006) .) SLAPP suits may be disposed of summarily by a special motion to strike under section 425.16, which is “a procedure where the trial court evaluates the merits of the lawsuit using a sum... [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Cohen (2006) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="3+Cal.5th+124"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ryan v. Rosenfeld (2016) 3 Cal.5th 124</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: That order is appealable. (See Ryan v. Rosenfeld (2017) -135.) We affirm it for the same reasons we affirm the judgment of dissolution. 30 1. [context]

S

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="339+U.S.+725"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1937) 339 U.S. 725</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Gerlach Live Stock Co. (1950) - 730, 752-753 upholding compensation to riparian owners who depended on river overflow, after construction of Friant Dam ended overflow; Dugan v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Gerlach Live Stock Co. (1950) - 730, 752-753 upholding compensation to riparian owners who depended on river overflow, after construction of Friant Dam ended overflow; Dugan v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="134+Cal.App.4th+151"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sabi v. Sterling (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Centerstone Development Co. (2005) raising an issue in a two-page footnote “is a violation of court rules that require arguments to be contained in discrete sections with headings summarizing the poin... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.App.4th+1410"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 1410</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Co. (1996) (Hedging Concepts); see also Donovan, at p. 278.) Section 1577 provides, “Mistake of fact is a mistake, not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistak... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="25+Cal.4th+763"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Saelzler v. Advanced (2000) 25 Cal.4th 763</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: Advanced Group 400 (2001) .) We accept as true both the facts shown by the losing party’s evidence and reasonable inferences from that evidence. (Aguilar v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+233"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Safai v. Safai (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 233</a>

  • Conservatorship of You Wei Dong: A guardian ad litem is deemed the party’s representative of record in the litigation, standing in for the protected person as a formal participant in the action.
  • Chui v. Chui: Safai (2008) .) To allow a minor to disaffirm a contract negotiated by the guardian ad litem would 67 negate this authority. [context]
  • Donkin v. Donkin: Safai (2008) , citing Burch, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 256, 258), the only extrinsic evidence relating to intent of either Trustor in drafting the trust document is an estate 20 planning book that shows... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.App.5th+1053"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Safarian v. Govgassian (2019) 47 Cal.App.5th 1053</a>

  • Welch v. Welch: Govgassian (2020) , fn. omitted.) A settlement “‘“must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, [context]
  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Code, § 1615, subds. (a), (c).) Given the plain language of the statute, we are not at liberty to selectively enforce 35 portions of an agreement when any of those predicates are lacking.” (Ibid. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="146+Cal.App.4th+1375"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Said v. Jegan (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1375</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Jegan (2007) .) Generally, standing is a question of law to which we apply a de novo standard of review. (San Luis Rey Racing, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="7+Cal.App.4th+419"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Saks v. Damon (1991) 7 Cal.App.4th 419</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="236+Cal.App.4th+467"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Salazar v. Thomas (2014) 236 Cal.App.4th 467</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="176+Cal.App.4th+1184"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Salter v. Lerner (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1184</a>

  • Breslin v. Breslin: Lerner (2009) .) First, the probate court did not determine that the Pacific parties were beneficiaries of the trust. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.5th+322"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Samara v. Matar (2017) 5 Cal.5th 322</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.4th+893"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 13 Cal.4th 893</a>

  • Robertson v. Saadat: Superior Court (1996) .) As plaintiff concedes, Vernoff does not address whether the sperm harvesting was lawful, and therefore provides no authority on that point. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.4th+653"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 38 Cal.4th 653</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: City and County of San Francisco (2006) , 674 (San Francisco Firefighters) holding “necessary” in context of Charter provision was intended “in its broader sense, i.e., ‘that which is . . . [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: City and County of San Francisco (2006) , 674 (San Francisco Firefighters) holding “necessary” in context of Charter provision was intended “in its broader sense, i.e., ‘that which is . . . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="61+Cal.4th+899"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sanchez v. Valencia (2013) 61 Cal.4th 899</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="19+Cal.App.5th+1176"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Santa Barbara Channelkeeper v. City of San Simeon (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 1176</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: City of San Buenaventura (2018) -1184 (Channelkeeper) noting similar principles govern groundwater rights.) Appropriative rights confer upon one who actually diverts... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: City of San Buenaventura (2018) -1184 (Channelkeeper) noting similar principles govern groundwater rights.) Appropriative rights confer upon one who actually diverts... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="455+U.S.+745"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">455 U.S. 745</a>

  • In re Z.O.: Kramer (1982) -754.) In those rare instances where the state does not provide such procedures, the record must demonstrate that the lack of observance of proper procedures was harmless beyond a reason... [context]
  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Kramer (1982) ; Addington v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.App.5th+574"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Save Open Space Santa Monica Mountains v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) , fn. 8 “courts will decline to consider any 39 factual assertion unsupported by record citation at the point where it is asserted”.) For the foregoing reasons... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.4th+1074"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schifando v. City (2002) 31 Cal.4th 1074</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="157+Cal.App.4th+728"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schmidlin v. City (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: City of Palo Alto (2007) .) This means “all material evidence on the point must be set forth and not merely appellant’s own evidence.” (Jordan v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="43+Cal.3d+784"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schneider v. State (1986) 43 Cal.3d 784</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 784, 796.) In sum, the ends do not justify the means when it comes to a trustee’s faithful discharge of fiduciary duties. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="139+Cal.+22"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">School District v. Paulson 139 Cal. 22</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.App.5th+96"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">School District v. The Superior Court (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 96</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: The Arnold Engineering Co. (2018) (Orange County), Lynne also argues that the trial court could not have found bad faith because she relied on her experts’ conclusions. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="237+Cal.App.4th+1226"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">School v. Los (2014) 237 Cal.App.4th 1226</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2015) , footnote 4, as categorically excusing compliance with rule 8.204(a)(2)(B) under any circumstance. Nevertheless, as we did with respect to Richard’s appeals... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="209+Cal.App.4th+1348"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">School v. Los (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1348</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) where controversy was likely to recur between parties, appeal was not moot.) 9 id., §§ 430.10, 430.20.) Where a plaintiff brings such a motion... [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2012) where controversy was likely to recur between parties, appeal was not moot.) 9 id., §§ 430.10, 430.20.) Where a plaintiff brings such a motion... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.App.5th+780"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schoshinski v. City (2016) 9 Cal.App.5th 780</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="22+Cal.4th+31"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schreiber v. Estate (1999) 22 Cal.4th 31</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Estate of Kiser (1999) .) Kalaba explained there are two types of physician experts, retained and nonretained. Experts must be listed in an expert designation to be permitted to provide expert opinion... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.2d+298"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">36 Cal.2d 298</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Reich (1950) 36 Cal.2d 298, 299; see Lee v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.3d+110"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schubert v. Reich (1976) 18 Cal.3d 110</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Brown (1976) 18 Cal.3d 110, 114.) We grant the request for judicial notice and the motion to augment the record as unopposed, but deny the motion to take additional evidence on appeal. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Brown (1976) 18 Cal.3d 110, 115.) However, where compliance arises only under compulsion of risk or forfeiture, a waiver will not be implied. (Id. at p. 116; see Cunningham v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Brown (1976) 18 Cal.3d 110, 115.) However, where compliance arises only under compulsion of risk or forfeiture, a waiver will not be implied. (Id. at p. 116; see Cunningham v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="127+Cal.App.4th+305"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schuster v. Gardner (2004) 127 Cal.App.4th 305</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="72+Cal.App.4th+111"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schuster v. Gardner (1998) 72 Cal.App.4th 111</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Anderson (1999) (Nelson).) The principles governing derivative actions in the context of corporations apply to limited liability companies and limited partnerships. (See Sprengel v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+417"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417</a>

  • Dunlap v. Mayer: Labow (2008) .) “The probate court has general power and duty to supervise the administration of trusts.” (Schwartz, at p. 427.) This power, however, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="167+Cal.App.4th+733"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Schwartz v. Schwartz (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 733</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: Schwartz (2008) , the court held that a petition seeking a particular distribution from an inter vivos trust violated a no 15 contest clause even though the petitioner withdrew the petition several mo... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.App.4th+307"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 307</a>

  • Sachs v. Sachs: CIBA Vision Corp. (1995) .) 9 DISPOSITION The judgment (order granting petition for instructions) is affirmed. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="184+Cal.App.4th+1506"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Scott v. Thompson (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1506</a>

  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: Thompson (2010) [context]
  • Amundson v. Catello: Thompson (2010) .) Section 872.210, subdivision (a)(2) provides the standing requirements to bring a claim to partition real property. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.4th+1596"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Scruton v. Korean (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1596</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Korean Air Lines Co. (1995) (Scruton); Espericueta v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+615"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Scruton v. Korean (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 615</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.App.5th+677"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) standing is a question of law to which we apply a de novo standard of review; Citizens for Amending Proposition L v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="179+Cal.App.4th+949"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 949</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Tran (2009) , fn. 6 on demurrer, court able to take judicial notice of settlement agreement referred 28 to in complaint; Estate of Cooper (1983) 142 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.2d+210"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van Winkle 39 Cal.2d 210</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: Van Winkle (1952) 39 Cal.2d 210, 216-218; see, e.g., Allen v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.5th+695"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See Conservatorship of K.P. (2020) 11 Cal.5th 695</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="218+Cal.App.4th+337"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See In re A.H. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 337</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="217+Cal.App.4th+441"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See In re M.P. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 441</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: P. (2013) 6 but granted her counsel’s request to withdraw from the case. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.4th+381"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See In re Marriage of Cornejo (1995) 13 Cal.4th 381</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: We thus disagree with petitioner’s assertion that our Supreme Court impliedly overruled Chamberlain and intended to 7 require a trial court to account for the standard of proof in the underlying proce... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.4th+1287"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See In re S.B. (2002) 32 Cal.4th 1287</a>

  • People v. Washington: B. (2004) ; accord, Unzueta v. [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: B. (2004) “the appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an *See footnote, ante, page 1. 7. important legal issue”.) Accordingly... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.App.5th+1083"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (2016) 10 Cal.App.5th 1083</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: Superior Court (2017) (McDermott).) 2. [context]
  • Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management: Superior Court (2017) .) In that situation, “we must ‘accept as true all evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence tending to establish the correctness of the trial court’s findings and... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.4th+449"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 20 Cal.4th 449</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Superior Court (1999) , fn. 9.) Contrary to Adam’s contention, the trial court did not take judicial notice of the meaning or a particular interpretation of the Trust terms. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="152+Cal.+716"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">See, e.g., Stanislaus Water Co. v. Bachman 152 Cal. 716</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="206+Cal.App.4th+875"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sefton v. Sefton (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 875</a>

  • Estate of Eimers: Sefton (2012) .) Sometimes a trustor will create a trust conferring a power of appointment on trust beneficiaries, empowering them to designate to whom they want to give their shares of the trust. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="162+Cal.App.4th+1014"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Serrano v. Stefan (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) the court held the trial court adjudicating a personal injury action had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a fee dispute between the plaintiff and a no... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="209+Cal.App.4th+1028"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Services v. Camacho (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1028</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: Camacho (2012) “It is axiomatic that arguments not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal.”), and we deem them forfeited. DISPOSITION The order denying the petition is affirmed. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="485+U.S.+478"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Services, Inc. v. Pope 485 U.S. 478</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="65+Cal.App.5th+506"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Seyed-Mohsen v. Paymehr (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 506</a>

  • Welch v. Welch: Oracle Corp. (2021) .) 12 Surviving Spouse’s Waiver of Rights Under the Probate Code Sections comprise the Surviving Spouse’s Waiver of Rights, and are codified as Chapter 1 of Division 2, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="433+U.S.+186"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">433 U.S. 186</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="194+Cal.App.4th+1507"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: Zeal and vigor in the representation of clients are commendable. Marriage of Davenport (2011) . Davenport condemned ‘attack dog’ ‘scorched earth’ litigation but that was not the case here. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.3d+474"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shamblin v. Brattain (1986) 44 Cal.3d 474</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.5th+510"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shamblin v. Brattain (2020) 11 Cal.5th 510</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: Vivar (2021) , fn. 7.) Nor was the trial court’s credibility finding “a clear abuse of discretion” where the court logically credited the declaration filed by Janine at a time when her residency was n... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="170+Cal.App.4th+229"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shaw v. County (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 229</a>

  • Conservatorship of Farrant: County of Santa Cruz (2008) “the failure to make an adequate offer of proof in the court below ordinarily precludes consideration on appeal of an allegedly erroneous exclusion of evidence”. [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: County of Santa Cruz (2008) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="64+Cal.App.5th+346"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shaw v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 346</a>

  • Marriage of Zucker: A. (2021) courts have inherent power to correct clerical errors.) 3. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="126+Cal.+189"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">126 Cal. 189</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.App.5th+1147"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sheley v. Harrop (2016) 9 Cal.App.5th 1147</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: F. Ahmanson & Co. (1969) 1 Cal.3d 93, 108 (Jones); accord, Sheley v. Harrop (2017) ; see § 17704.09 describing the fiduciary duties of members and managers of a limited liability company; Feresi v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="232+Cal.App.4th+419"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sheley v. Harrop (2013) 232 Cal.App.4th 419</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="52+Cal.3d+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shoemaker v. Myers (1989) 52 Cal.3d 1</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="84+Cal.App.4th+872"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shupe v. Nelson (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 872</a>

  • Wilkin v. Nelson: Superior Court (2000) -881.) The parties agree the substantial evidence standard applies here. [context]
  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Superior Court (2000) ; Ensworth v. Mullvain (1990) 224 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="130+Cal.App.4th+1563"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Siam v. Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Kizilbash (2005) -1580); knowingly filing debt collection actions in improper venues for the purpose of impairing the debtors’ ability to defend themselves (see Barquis v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="214+Cal.+767"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">214 Cal. 767</a>

  • In re Brace: Siberell (1932) (Siberell) that may govern characterization in certain situations. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.App.5th+1037"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Simmons v. Bauer (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1037</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Bauer Media Group USA, LLC (2020) .) We also review de novo any legal issues properly raised on appeal of a fee award. (Reck v. FCA US LLC (2021) 64 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="64+Cal.App.5th+682"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Simmons v. Bauer (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 682</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: App.5th 1037, 1043.) We also review de novo any legal issues properly raised on appeal of a fee award. (Reck v. FCA US LLC (2021) (Reck); Apex LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.4th+1159"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Simon v. San (2004) 35 Cal.4th 1159</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Holding Co., Inc. (2005) –1172) to expect that a provisional evaluation of that issue can be done in an accurate and reliable way in an attachment proceeding. [context]
  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Holding Co., Inc. (2005) 29 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.4th+686"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Simon v. San (2008) 47 Cal.4th 686</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: McKesson Corp. (2009) (Roby).) “In State Farm, the high court articulated ‘three guideposts’ for courts reviewing punitive damages: ‘(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="175+Cal.+81"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">175 Cal. 81</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="227+Cal.App.4th+813"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813</a>

  • Conservatorship of R.J.: An appellate court will disregard arguments raised on appeal that lack sufficient factual or legal support, treating such unsupported points as forfeited.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.5th+125"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SinoType Technology Co., Ltd. (2019) 9 Cal.5th 125</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd. (2020) “‘a party may voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court, or may, by failing to seasonably object thereto, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="225+Cal.App.4th+349"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sipple v. City (2013) 225 Cal.App.4th 349</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: City of Hayward (2014) –359 company’s standing to seek refunds on behalf of customers for taxes collected and 27. remitted by company; TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="151+Cal.App.4th+1386"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sisemore v. Master (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Master Financial, Inc. (2007) (Sisemore).) 12. “On appeal, we will affirm a ‘trial court’s decision to sustain the demurrer if it was correct on any theory. Citation.’ Citation. Thus... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.App.4th+1832"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Skarbrevik v. Cohen (1994) 36 Cal.App.4th 1832</a>

  • Capra v. Capra: Tracinda Corp. (1995) .) Plaintiffs cite to Woods v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="15+Cal.3d+194"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Skelly v. State (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194</a>

  • Breslin v. Breslin: State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 208 due process requires a notice and hearing in “every significant deprivation” of an interest in property). [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.5th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Skidgel v. California (2021) 12 Cal.5th 1</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Appeals Bd. (2021) .) At bottom, Hankin’s unsupported personal opinion that the law should give him standing is irrelevant to our determination of whether it actually does. (See Peake v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="181+Cal.App.4th+1359"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1359</a>

  • In re E.L.: Un re Noreen G. (2010) .) The trial court’s findings are reviewed under the clear and convincing evidence standard. (Guardianship of Ann S., supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1127... [context]
  • Adoption of M.R.: C. § 1903(4).) In the context of a petition to free a minor from a parent’s custody and care pursuant to Family Code section or Probate Code section 1516.5, the court, petitioner... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="199+Cal.App.4th+1381"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Smith v. Cimmet (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1381</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A probate estate itself has no capacity to initiate or defend a lawsuit; any action must be brought by, or defended against, the estate’s personal representative or executor.
  • Ring v. Harmon: Cimmet (2011) (Smith); see Prob. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.App.4th+1478"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Smith v. Selma (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1478</a>

  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Selma Community Hospital (2008) the existence or nonexistence of substantial evidence is a question of law.) Thus, a determination by the trial court that the petitioner has produced substantial evide... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="188+Cal.App.4th+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Smith v. Selma (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.2d+235"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">45 Cal.2d 235</a>

  • Estate of El Wardani: App.4th 78, 81 (Damskog) decedent’s Norwegian sisters were not entitled to appointment as administrator themselves and therefore could not nominate an administrator.) Accordingly... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="172+Cal.App.4th+238"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.App.5th+450"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Smith v. Szeyller (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 450</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.App.5th+183"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Smyth v. Berman (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 183</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="212+Cal.App.4th+652"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">So v. Shin (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 652</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.2d+342"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">36 Cal.2d 342</a>

  • Pearce v. Briggs: King (1950) 36 Cal.2d 342, 345-347; Estate of Gallio (1995) 33 Cal. [context]
  • In re Brace: King (1950) 36 Cal.2d 342 [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.App.4th+592"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Socol v. King (1994) 33 Cal.App.4th 592</a>

  • Pearce v. Briggs: King (1950) 36 Cal.2d 342, 345-347; Estate of Gallio (1995) .) ‘However, there must be an agreement of some sort; the presumption may not be overcome by testimony about the hidden intention of one spo... [context]
  • In re Brace: App.4th 176, 185–187; Estate of Gallio (1995) ), they are in fact distinct. In order to understand the applicability of these various rules, it is necessary to examine the history of the relevant stat... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.4th+1109"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2012) 57 Cal.4th 1109</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="45+Cal.App.5th+40"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sons, Inc. (2019) 45 Cal.App.5th 40</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.App.4th+1548"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sosinsky v. Grant (1991) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Grant (1992) ). 35. Builders, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 361–362; Luna Crest, supra, 245 Cal. [context]
  • Guardianship of S.H.R.: Grant (1992) −1565, 1568.) 9 rights of the parties.” (Id. at p. 697.) An order by the superior court may constitute an appealable judgment if it disposes of all causes of action pending in the case. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.4th+260"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Soukup v. Law (2005) 39 Cal.4th 260</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) , fn. 3 (Soukup).) In performing our de novo review, we “ ‘conduct an independent review of the entire record. Citations.’ ” (Paulus v. [context]
  • Dae v. Traver: Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) , quoting Navellier v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.4th+548"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Soule v. General (1993) 8 Cal.4th 548</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="217+Cal.App.4th+218"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Southern California Edison Co. v. City of Victorville (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 218</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="196+Cal.App.4th+1545"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1545</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: AT&T Mobility, LLC (2011) .) “ ‘In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a general demurrer, we are guided by long-settled rules. “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts prop... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="49+Cal.2d+210"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">49 Cal.2d 210</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Spellens (1957) 49 Cal.2d 210, 232.) Abuse of process is distinct from the tort of malicious prosecution. “While a defendant’s act of improperly instituting or maintaining an action may, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="578+U.S.+330"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins 578 U.S. 330</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Robins (2016) (Spokeo II).) The judicial powers of federal courts are circumscribed by section 2 of article III of the United States Constitution which limits its powers to identified “Cases” and “Con... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.App.5th+1028"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sprengel v. Zbylut (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1028</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Zbylut (2019) -1041 limited liability company; Everest Investors 8 v. McNeil Partners, supra, 114 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="245+Cal.App.4th+879"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Springs v. Luna (2014) 245 Cal.App.4th 879</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Luna Crest, Inc. (2016) (Luna Crest) challenging City’s permit requirement; Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="69+Cal.App.5th+434"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Springs v. Luna (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 434</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: M&N Financing Corp. (2021) –444 standing to sue employer for violations of Unruh Civil Rights Act; Sipple v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="137+S.Ct.+1773"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Squibb v. Superior Court 137 S.Ct. 1773</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="66+Cal.App.5th+365"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Starcevic v. Pentech Financial Services, Incorporated (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 365</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: A judgment lien automatically expires when the underlying judgment is not renewed before the statutory 10‑year enforcement period lapses.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.3d+779"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">State Bd. of Education (1981) 32 Cal.3d 779</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: We deny the remaining requests. 9 authority of the court is limited to determining whether the decision of the agency was arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: We deny the remaining requests. 9 authority of the court is limited to determining whether the decision of the agency was arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in evidentiary support, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="123+S.Ct.+1513"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 123 S.Ct. 1513</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="524+U.S.+321"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">524 U.S. 321</a>

  • People v. Braum: Bajakajian (1998) (Bajakajian); and the imposition of daily penalties is suspect and disfavored. 26 2. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="535+U.S.+274"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">535 U.S. 274</a>

  • Ring v. Harmon: Craft (2002) ; see also Bounds v. Superior Court (2014) 229 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="448+F.3d+86"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">448 F.3d 86</a>

  • Conservatorship of Joanne R.: Leja (1st Cir. 2006) 448 F.3d 86, 95 district court did not coerce defendant to waive his right to a jury trial even though the court indicated “a jury might have difficulty with the complexity of the... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="355+U.S.+313"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">355 U.S. 313</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: City of Baxley (1958) ), making a superior court judge little better than a potted plant. The Statutory Scheme The Act, better known as “AB 939” its enabling legislation (and as it will usually be ref... [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: City of Baxley (1958) ), making a superior court judge little better than a potted plant. The Statutory Scheme The Act, better known as “AB 939” its enabling legislation (and as it will usually be ref... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.App.5th+181"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stella v. Asset (2016) 8 Cal.App.5th 181</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.4th+1167"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stephenson v. Drever (1996) 16 Cal.4th 1167</a>

  • Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde: Drever (1997) .) In Stephenson, our Supreme Court explained this principle in the context of contract interpretation: “The fact that the contract expressly so provides tends to negate any inference th... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="134+Cal.App.4th+1565"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stewart v. Preston (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1565</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: 19 only to claims for property damage does not entitle him to rescind the release under the circumstances of this case.” (Casey, at pp. 104–105.)10 The Casey decision is not cited in Donovan... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="15+Cal.2d+352"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">15 Cal.2d 352</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.2d+469"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stockton Theatres, Inc. v. Palermo 47 Cal.2d 469</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Palermo (1956) 47 Cal.2d 469, 474 obiter dictum need not be followed by appellate courts.) We nonetheless agree with the conclusion by the Lanz court. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.4th+730"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stockton v. Superior (2006) 42 Cal.4th 730</a>

  • Torres v. Adventist Health System/West: Superior Court (2007) , which involved a demurrer, for the principle that “the issue of leave to amend is always open on appeal, even if not raised by the plaintiff.” (Id. at pp. 746–747; [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.App.5th+891"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stone v. Regents of University of California (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 891</a>

  • Welch v. Welch: Department of Industrial Relations (2021) .) “Marital property settlement agreements are favored under California law , and governed by general contract principles .” (Safarian v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="64+Cal.App.4th+1496"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Stoutt v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: App.2d at p. 89.) Under such supervision, the court may “rescind” a guardian ad litem’s actions that are “inimical to the legitimate interests of the ward.” (Regency Health Services, Inc. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="30+Cal.App.4th+181"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Strauch v. Eyring (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 181</a>

  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: Eyring (1994) , but that holding is consistent with ViaView, for the pleadings in Strauch were not verified. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.3d+28"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Strumsky v. San (1973) 11 Cal.3d 28</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 32.) I The Independent Judgment Standard Of Review Applies We first address petitioner’s confusing argument that Conservatorship of O. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="180+Cal.App.4th+1287"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Suleman v. Superior (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1287</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.App.5th+361"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Summers v. Colette (2018) 34 Cal.App.5th 361</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: Colette (2019) .) Therefore, we look to the legislative history. 2. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="34+Cal.App.5th+371"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Summers, supra (2018) 34 Cal.App.5th 371</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: 39 may seem fit and proper; or may, at his option, assume the management of said proceeding at any stage thereof.”) “In principle, the use of a relator allows the attorney general to bring suit in abs... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.App.5th+114"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sunrise Financial, LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 32 Cal.App.5th 114</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="90+Cal.App.4th+958"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Superior Court (2000) 90 Cal.App.4th 958</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: App.4th 621, 651 plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim for corporate mismanagement and diverting corporate assets was derivative; PacLink Communications Internat.... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="218+Cal.+114"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Superior Court of San Francisco 218 Cal. 114</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="14+Cal.App.5th+514"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sviridov v. City (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 514</a>

  • Humphrey v. Bewley: City of San Diego (2017) .) VI THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE BY PUBLICATION Humphrey contends that the named defendants were properly served. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.App.5th+116"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Switzer v. Wood (2018) 35 Cal.App.5th 116</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Wood (2019) .) “ ‘If, however, the statutory terms are ambiguous, then we may resort to extrinsic sources, including the ostensible objects to be achieved and the legislative history. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="138+Cal.App.4th+1135"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2005) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135</a>

  • Rallo v. O'Brian: Helliker (2006) .) “We give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318. [context]

T

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.5th+145"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145</a>

  • Turner v. Victoria: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) (Novartis).) We “ ‘treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact... [context]
  • Robertson v. Saadat: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) .) “ ‘ “ ‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="76+Cal.App.5th+130"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tan v. Appellate (2021) 76 Cal.App.5th 130</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.App.4th+419"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tanner v. Tanner (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 419</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: An appeal is considered abandoned—and may be dismissed—when the appellant’s brief does not raise or challenge the specific order, thereby limiting appellate review to the issues actually presented.
  • Maleti v. Wickers: Tanner (1997) , fn. 2 appellate court treats as partial abandonment of appeal an appellant’s failure to challenge in opening brief an order specified in notice of appeal.) . 51 defendants. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.App.5th+395"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tarin v. Lind (2019) 47 Cal.App.5th 395</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: Lind (2020) –404.) We hold that the undisputed facts confer standing on Simon under section 11700. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.App.5th+730"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Templo v. State (2017) 24 Cal.App.5th 730</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: State (2018) .) Except as provided in the statute governing motions for judgment on the pleadings, Code of Civil Procedure section 438, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Weil & Brown, Cal. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: State (2018) .) Except as provided in the statute governing motions for judgment on the pleadings, Code of Civil Procedure section 438, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Weil & Brown, Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.3d+18"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tenzer v. Superscope (1984) 39 Cal.3d 18</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Superscope, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 18, 27 (Tenzer).) The statute of frauds applies to all forms of promises and agreements falling within its ambit, whether express or implied. (Beard v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="10+Cal.App.5th+1198"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tepper v. Wilkins (2016) 10 Cal.App.5th 1198</a>

  • Conservatorship of Anne S.: Wilkins (2017) “simply being an elder’s child is not sufficient to confer standing” where child had no “legally cognizable interest in her mother’s revocable living trust”; [context]
  • Keading v. Keading: Wilkins (2017) –1205; see § 15610.30, subd. (d).) Here, Kenton recognizes that when Hilja initiated the action, she was a co-trustee of the family trust... [context]
  • Ring v. Harmon: Wilkins (2017) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="173+Cal.App.4th+156"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Teselle v. Mc (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156</a>

  • Conservatorship of Farrant: McLoughlin (2009) -180.) In open court appellant said that on September 21, 2014, he had control over Norma’s pension checks and her share of the rental income from the Newbury Park property. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="164+Cal.+117"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">164 Cal. 117</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Co. (1912) (Thayer).) The CDC posted a notice of appropriation. (Ibid.)8 Individuals also posted notices of appropriation, and later assigned their rights to the CDC. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Co. (1912) (Thayer).) The CDC posted a notice of appropriation. (Ibid.)8 Individuals also posted notices of appropriation, and later assigned their rights to the CDC. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="73+U.S.+18"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Amelie 73 U.S. 18</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: The following are illustrative: The Amelie (1867) : shipmaster may sell ship without owner permission where necessary, and “necessity is a question of fact”; Ayres v. [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: The following are illustrative: The Amelie (1867) : shipmaster may sell ship without owner permission where necessary, and “necessity is a question of fact”; Ayres v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="69+Cal.2d+33"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. 69 Cal.2d 33</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="6+Cal.App.5th+970"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: Findings of fact from a bench trial are reviewed on a substantial‑evidence basis, with the appellate court giving those findings deference and construing them liberally in the light most favorable to...
  • Keading v. Keading: We disagree. “In reviewing a judgment based upon a statement of decision following a bench trial, . . . we apply a substantial evidence standard of review to the trial court’s findings of fact. [context]
  • Pearce v. Briggs: Asimos (2016) .) Resolution of a statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact. (Jolly v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.3d+1103"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Thompson v. Asimos (1986) 44 Cal.3d 1103</a>

  • Pearce v. Briggs: Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1112.) “The trial court’s finding on the accrual of a cause of action for statute of limitations is upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="193+Cal.App.4th+874"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Thompson v. Clark (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 874</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="113+Cal.App.4th+258"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Thomson v. Anderson (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 258</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Anderson (2003) “‘because the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a “variety of legal arrangements” by which a 23 litigant may give “express... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.3d+211"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tiernan v. Trustees (1982) 33 Cal.3d 211</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: State University & Colleges (1982) 33 Cal.3d 211, 216, fn. 4.) In any event, Carol presented evidence that Maleti had paid over $283,000 in attorney fees... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="187+Cal.App.4th+438"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Times Media LLC (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 438</a>

  • Eyford v. Nord: New Times Media LLC (2010) –454.) Before concluding, we briefly address appellants’ other arguments. First, appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding Kay had testamentary capacity by se... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="26+Cal.4th+995"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Torres v. Parkhouse (2000) 26 Cal.4th 995</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) .) The Chamberlain and Ettinger courts essentially relied on two principles for the conclusion that the weight of the evidence phrase in section 1094. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="182+Cal.App.4th+1661"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1661</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: App.4th 508, 525 “ ‘A cause of action for breach of implied contract has 28 the same elements as does a cause of action for breach of contract, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="65+Cal.App.4th+940"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Townsel v. San (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 940</a>

  • People v. Braum: San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1998) . . .), but with deference to underlying factual findings, which we review for substantial evidence, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="104+Cal.App.4th+1202"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tran v. Farmers (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1202</a>

  • Logan v. Country Oaks Partners: Farmers Group, Inc. (2002) “The scope of a power of attorney depends on the language of the instrument, which is strictly construed. Citation.”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="141+S.Ct.+2190"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021) 141 S.Ct. 2190</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: App.4th at p. 883.) We also reject Limon’s claims he suffered “informational injury” sufficient to confer upon him standing to maintain his action. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="44+Cal.App.4th+1160"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Transportation Co. (1995) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.App.5th+240"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Travis v. Brand (2020) 62 Cal.App.5th 240</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Brand (2021) nonparties have standing to appeal where “the judgment has a ‘res judicata effect’” or is otherwise binding on the nonparty, review granted June 23, 2021, 8 The January 5... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.App.5th+939"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trolan v. Trolan (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 939</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: When the language of a trust instrument is clear and unambiguous, it governs the settlor’s intent and extrinsic evidence may not be considered to interpret the trust.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="11+Cal.4th+274"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trope v. Katz (1994) 11 Cal.4th 274</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="17+Cal.4th+599"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trope v. Katz (1997) 17 Cal.4th 599</a>

  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Goodin (1998) “An appellate decision is not authority for everything said in the court’s opinion but only ‘for the points actually involved and actually decided’ ”.) To state the obvious... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="181+Cal.App.4th+102"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Truong v. Glasser (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 102</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: As a result, Brock did not meet his burden on summary judgment to show that undisputed facts supported each element of the affirmative defense. [context]
  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Glaser (2009) , he asserts that Knapp only needed to know that Tinker was unrepresented to start the clock running, and that it was irrelevant that she was unaware of the legal theories or remedies av... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="691+F.3d+1008"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (9th Cir. 2012) 691 F.3d 1008</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Bureau of Reclamation (9th Cir. 2012) 691 F.3d 1008, 1019, fn. 13.) We refer instead to the specific authorities, as necessary to our discussion. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Bureau of Reclamation (9th Cir. 2012) 691 F.3d 1008, 1019, fn. 13.) We refer instead to the specific authorities, as necessary to our discussion. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="16+Cal.2d+550"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">16 Cal.2d 550</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1940) 16 Cal.2d 550, 554 gross negligence accompanied by an element of deceit sufficient to prove moral turpitude warranting disbarment; Crane v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="30+Cal.3d+117"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trusty v. State (1981) 30 Cal.3d 117</a>

  • In re Bradshaw: State Bar (1981) 30 Cal.3d 117, 124 attempt to deceive escrow agents by deleting excerpts from a beneficiary statement without authorization; Farnham v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="144+Cal.App.4th+554"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tunstall v. Wells (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 554</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: Wells (2006) citing Ferber for the proposition that “ ‘beneficiaries must be free to raise public policy issues so the court may address them’ ”, quoting 21 Ferber, supra, 66 Cal. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="200+Cal.App.4th+158"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Turner v. Milstein (2012) 200 Cal.App.4th 158</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.4th+622"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Turner v. Milstein (2012) 57 Cal.4th 622</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="67+Cal.+1"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">67 Cal. 1</a>

U

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="46+Cal.App.4th+778"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 778</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="115+Cal.App.3d+336"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">USLIFE Savings & Loan Assn. v. National Surety Corporation (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 336</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: An appellate court may not consider evidence that was not properly offered and admitted at trial; the appellate record is limited to evidence that was moved into the record.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="143+Cal.+265"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">143 Cal. 265</a>

  • Amundson v. Catello: Rice (1904) (Bank of Ukiah) “While it may be conceded that upon the death of C. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="235+Cal.App.4th+156"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ukkestad v. RBS Asset Finance, Incorporated (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 156</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A written general assignment of all of a party’s real and personal property is legally sufficient to effect a valid transfer of those assets, even when the specific items (such as shares or notes) are...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="242+Cal.App.4th+1265"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Unilab Corp. v. Angeles-IPA (2014) 242 Cal.App.4th 1265</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.4th+1059"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Union Ins. Co. (2001) 28 Cal.4th 1059</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: Co. (2002) (conc. opn. of Brown. J.).) Moreover, a survey of the case law of other state courts of last resort reveals numerous recent decisions in which these courts have calibrated their review for... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="141+U.S.+250"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford 141 U.S. 250</a>

  • Conservatorship of Navarrete: Botsford (1891) .) An adult conservatee’s disability does not put them in the legal position of a minor. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="510+F.3d+1083"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">United States v. Berber 510 F.3d 1083</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: United States v. Berber-Tinoco (9th Cir. 2007) 510 F.3d 1083, 1091 judge may not rely on personal experience to take judicial notice.)41 Thus, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: United States v. Berber-Tinoco (9th Cir. 2007) 510 F.3d 1083, 1091 judge may not rely on personal experience to take judicial notice.)41 Thus, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="635+F.3d+505"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">United States v. Nosal 635 F.3d 505</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Cir. 2011) 635 F.3d 505, 509, 511, 517-18 addressing federal cessation of water deliveries in 2001 to protect endangered species; remanding for determination of whether plaintiffs had property interes... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Cir. 2011) 635 F.3d 505, 509, 511, 517-18 addressing federal cessation of water deliveries in 2001 to protect endangered species; remanding for determination of whether plaintiffs had property interes... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.App.5th+199"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Unzueta v. Akopyan (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 199</a>

  • People v. Washington: Akopyan (2019) “‘neither forfeiture nor application of the forfeiture rule is automatic’”.) Although Washington’s attorney failed to argue that Washington was entitled to a jury trial absent a persona... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="15+Cal.App.5th+1182"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Urick v. Urick (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1182</a>

  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: 11 testator’s expressed wishes” (thereby constituting a contest), simply because she sought to contest the will in Oregon. (Id. at pp. 200–201.) In this respect, Meiri’s petition stands apart. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="188+Cal.App.4th+866"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Uzyel v. Kadisha (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 866</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: Kadisha (2010) , 926, fn. 47 . . .; see Gemini Aluminum Corp. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="95+Cal.App.4th+1249"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Uzyel v. Kadisha (2001) 95 Cal.App.4th 1249</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: California Custom Shapes, Inc. (2002) . . . (Gemini) ‘ “ ‘bad faith’ means simply that the action or tactic is being pursued for an improper motive” ’. [context]
  • Jones v. Goodman: California Custom Shapes (2002) [context]

V

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="56+Cal.2d+329"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vai v. Bank of America 56 Cal.2d 329</a>

  • Hudson v. Foster: App.2d 178, 181), even under this view, courts employ the statute of limitations by analogy to measure laches or unreasonable delay in an action to set aside a judgment. (Vai v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="185+Cal.App.4th+153"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153</a>

  • Logan v. Country Oaks Partners: Smyth (2010) .) Although federal and California law favor enforcement of valid arbitration agreements, “‘“there is no public policy favoring arbitration of disputes which the parties have not agreed t... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="228+Cal.App.4th+1155"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vance v. Bizek (2013) 228 Cal.App.4th 1155</a>

  • Estate of Tarlow: Bizek (2014) .) And a demurrer is not an evidentiary motion to which such a presumption may be applied. (See Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) .) Barbara and Gerald also argue Simon only has standing if he... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="20+Cal.3d+285"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Varjabedian v. City (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: City of Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285, 295, fn. 11.) Here, good cause is not shown. [context]
  • Estate of Ashlock: City of Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285, 295, fn. 11 “Obvious reasons of fairness militate against consideration of an issue raised initially in the reply brief of an appellant”; Christoff v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="31+Cal.2d+586"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">31 Cal.2d 586</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Jonas (1948) 31 Cal.2d 586, 601; see Paterno v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="74+Cal.App.4th+68"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vaughn v. Jonas (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: State of California (1999) “the appellant bears the duty of spelling out in his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice”.) Christine has failed to make that showing 29 Due to the C... [context]
  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: State of California (1999) ; Garrick Development Co. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="35+Cal.App.5th+1099"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Veiseh v. Stapp (2018) 35 Cal.App.5th 1099</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.App.5th+88"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Velazquez v. Family (2020) 62 Cal.App.5th 88</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Family Health Centers of San Diego, Inc. (2021) .) The probate court found that Richard properly asserted issue preclusion to each of Tukes’s claims against the Bennett Trustee because Tukes had dismi... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="42+Cal.3d+1157"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Venture v. Greenberg (1985) 42 Cal.3d 1157</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1157, 1169 (Oren Royal Oaks Venture).) Attorneys argued below in their anti-SLAPP motion that Carol could not plead or prove her second cause... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="568+F.3d+1102"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">568 F.3d 1102</a>

  • Robertson v. Saadat: Astrue (9th Cir. 2009) 568 F.3d 1102 (Vernoff), for the proposition that she was entitled to extract Aaron’s sperm to conceive a child. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="172+Cal.App.4th+1443"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vidrio v. Hernandez (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1443</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.App.4th+1327"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Villa v. Cole (1991) 4 Cal.App.4th 1327</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="30+Cal.4th+1232"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Viner v. Sweet (2002) 30 Cal.4th 1232</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Sweet (2003) ; accord, Masellis v. Law Office of Leslie F. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="50+Cal.App.5th+1077"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Viner v. Sweet (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1077</a>

  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Jensen (2020) (Masellis).) “‘If the allegedly negligent conduct does not cause damage, it generates no cause of action in tort. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="205+Cal.+252"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">205 Cal. 252</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="194+Cal.+243"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">194 Cal. 243</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="84+Cal.App.4th+882"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vista v. Robert (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 882</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Robert Thomas Securities, Inc. (2000) (City of Vista).) The superior court determined that Abatti failed to allege facts establishing damages that would support his claims. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Robert Thomas Securities, Inc. (2000) (City of Vista).) The superior court determined that Abatti failed to allege facts establishing damages that would support his claims. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="79+Cal.App.4th+440"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vo v. Las (1999) 79 Cal.App.4th 440</a>

  • Keading v. Keading: Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) –448 “absence of a record concerning what actually occurred at the trial precludes a determination that the trial court abused its discretion”. [context]

W

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="149+Cal.+627"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">149 Cal. 627</a>

  • Conservatorship of O.B.: More than a century ago, in Wadleigh v. Phelps (1906) , we upheld a finding that a deed, absolute on its face, was in fact a mortgage. (Id., at p. 639.) In doing so, we expounded, “It is, of course, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="162+Cal.App.4th+249"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wagner v. Wagner (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 249</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="571+U.S.+277"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">571 U.S. 277</a>

  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: 8 California, but the propriety and effectiveness of that effort is the focus of this California lawsuit. A The first prong of the three-part test is “purposeful availment”: have defendants purposeful... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="141+Cal.App.4th+15"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wanland v. Law (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 15</a>

  • Tukes v. Richard: Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt & Chiurazzi (2006) .) In his opening brief, Richard offers a purported quote from counsel’s declaration in support of the fee request as follows: “Mr. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="422+U.S.+490"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">422 U.S. 490</a>

  • Barefoot v. Jennings: Seldin (1975) standing in federal courts; Estate of Plaut (1945) 27 Cal.2d 424, 426, 429-430 will contest.) The applicable Probate Code provisions support plaintiff’s standing to challenge the merits... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="200+Cal.App.4th+1163"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Water Co. (2012) 200 Cal.App.4th 1163</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Del Norte Water Co. (2011) -1168 shareholder's stake in a mutual water company is a property interest, with consumers entitled to receive water.) 20 We also reject the District's reliance on Clough, [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Del Norte Water Co. (2011) -1168 shareholder's stake in a mutual water company is a property interest, with consumers entitled to receive water.) 20 We also reject the District's reliance on Clough, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="2+Cal.5th+1241"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Weatherford v. City (2016) 2 Cal.5th 1241</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: City of San Rafael (2017) (Weatherford) and White, supra, 13 Cal.3d at page 762, for the proposition that concrete injury is not a requirement for standing in California. [context]
  • Turner v. Victoria: City of San Rafael (2017) (Weatherford); Code Civ. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.App.4th+1578"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Weber v. Langholz (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1578</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A revocable inter vivos trust is designed to keep its assets out of probate; property transferred to the trust is not subject to probate administration after the settlor’s death.
  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: Langholz (1995) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.3d+476"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Weiner v. Fleischman (1990) 54 Cal.3d 476</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="459+U.S.+375"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">459 U.S. 375</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="441+U.S.+418"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">441 U.S. 418</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="9+Cal.5th+840"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Weiss v. People (2019) 9 Cal.5th 840</a>

  • Guardianship of A.H.: Department of Transportation (2020) .) Section 217, however, applies only “at a hearing on any order to show cause or notice of motion brought pursuant to this code” — i.e., the Family Code. (§ 217, [context]
  • Guardianship of Saul H.: Dept. of Transportation (2020) .) A court may, for example, ask the child to provide additional evidence supporting the findings, such as a supplementary or amended declaration, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.App.3d+927"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wells Fargo Bank v. Huse (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 927</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: When the language of a trust instrument is clear and unambiguous, the court must interpret the trust solely by its plain terms and may not resort to extrinsic evidence to alter or supplement that mean...

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.4th+236"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wells v. Lloyd (2002) 32 Cal.4th 236</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: Barragan (2004) .) Therefore, we will not address the litany of arguments in the opening brief at pages 34––47, in of decision” refers to the March 19, 2018, document as modified by the July 13, 2018, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.4th+1164"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wells v. One (2005) 39 Cal.4th 1164</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: One2One Learning Foundation (2006) .) If the words are clear and unambiguous, their plain meaning governs. (Ibid.; accord, Murphy v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="105+Cal.App.4th+1095"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Westly v. Board (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th 1095</a>

  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt. Authority v. Waste Connections etc.: Board of Administration (2003) .) “The issue is whether the pleading raises an issue that can be resolved as a matter of law.” (Ibid.) Interpretation of a statute... [context]
  • Alameda County Waste Mgmt Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc.: Board of Administration (2003) .) “The issue is whether the pleading raises an issue that can be resolved as a matter of law.” (Ibid.) Interpretation of a statute... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="8+Cal.2d+322"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">8 Cal.2d 322</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="13+Cal.3d+757"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">White v. Davis (1974) 13 Cal.3d 757</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 762 (White) rejecting a challenge to taxpayer standing as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 526a.) As is relevant here... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.2d+727"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">37 Cal.2d 727</a>

  • Holt v. Brock: Towers (1951) 37 Cal.2d 727, 730-732.) When determining whether a person is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, courts look at the nature of the duty performed to determine whether the ac... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="21+Cal.4th+563"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">White v. Ultramar (1998) 21 Cal.4th 563</a>

  • Rubio v. CIA Wheel Group: Ultramar, Inc. (1999) , fn. 4.) The court found credible Vasquez’s testimony that Russo told him Lopez had cancer (demonstrating Russo’s knowledge) and testimony by Marisela that she told Casar Lopez... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="185+Cal.App.4th+1194"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Whittemore v. Owens (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1194</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: Owens Healthcare-Retail Pharmacy, Inc. (2010) ) and “ ‘ “consider matters which may be judicially noticed.” ’ ”4 (Evans v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="153+Cal.App.3d+45"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Widson v. International Harvester Company (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 45</a>

  • Garcia v. Garcia: A judgment may be affirmed on appeal when an independent, adequate basis exists to support the decision, even if other alleged errors are present.

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="27+Cal.+228"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">27 Cal. 228</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="201+Cal.+726"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">201 Cal. 726</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="79+Cal.App.5th+214"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Williams v. Alameda County (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 214</a>

  • In re E.L.: We admit into evidence Mother’s ICWA- 020 form and the tribe’s response pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 909 as appendices A-1, A-2, and A-3, post... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.App.5th+246"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Williams v. Garcetti (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 246</a>

  • People v. Braum: Mary H. (2016) .) “The degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates— as well as the relative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement—depends in part on the nature of the enactment. Thus. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="41+Cal.App.5th+1060"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Williams v. Impax (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 1060</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Impax Laboratories, Inc. (2019) same.) In addition, the vast majority of Michael and Joseph’s argument appears in a footnote. (See Sabi v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="183+Cal.App.4th+916"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Williams v. Impax (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 916</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Sterling (2010) “Footnotes are not the appropriate vehicle for stating contentions on appeal.”; Evans v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="147+Cal.App.4th+36"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Williams v. Superior Court (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th 36</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: App.2d 86, 89 (Serway)), and the guardian ad litem is appointed, if at all, “ ‘ “merely to aid and to enable the court to perform that duty of protection.” ’ ” (Williams v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="48+Cal.App.5th+1104"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Willis v. City (2019) 48 Cal.App.5th 1104</a>

  • Bruno v. Hopkins: City of Carlsbad (2020) , fn. 12.) 9 Lynne asks this court to take judicial notice of the petition for probate of Mildred’s estate, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court case number 18PR182639... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="191+Cal.App.4th+1559"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559</a>

  • Parker v. Schwarcz: City Council of Redwood City (2011) .) Accordingly, this appeal is not moot. 6 review de novo. (See California Building Industry Assn. v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="150+Cal.App.4th+527"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Parker (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 527</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Hafif (2007) -548.) The plaintiff must show that its claim has “at least ‘minimal merit.’ ” (Park v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.4th+811"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Parker (2001) 28 Cal.4th 811</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: Parker, Covert & Chidester (2002) , quoting Matson v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="40+Cal.App.4th+539"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wilson v. Parker (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 539</a>

  • Dae v. Traver: Dvorak (1995) .) Here, the parties agree that Robert’s No Contest Petition arose from Dae’s protected litigation conduct under the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="4+Cal.App.4th+1159"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Winet v. Price (1991) 4 Cal.App.4th 1159</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Price (1992) , questioned the validity of Casey on a different issue, noting that Casey predated Supreme Court cases holding that the construction of a written instrument is a question of law for the... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="68+Cal.App.4th+624"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Winograd v. American Broadcasting Companies (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624</a>

  • Estate of Ashlock: 33. The judgment is presumed correct, all reasonable inferences are indulged to support it, and all ambiguities are resolved in favor of its affirmance. (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) . [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.2d+450"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Witkin v. Kobliska 57 Cal.2d 450</a>

  • Balistreri v. Balistreri: Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, to choose between sides of any such conflict.” (Haggerty v. [context]
  • Wehsener v. Jernigan: Analysis Applying Lund and Blythe, as we must (see Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450 [context]
  • Amundson v. Catello: Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455), we must assume that the Legislature was aware of this case when it enacted Probate Code section 9823 to vest in the personal representa... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="69+Cal.App.4th+1012"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wollersheim v. Church (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 1012</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="142+S.Ct.+1332"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">142 S.Ct. 1332</a>

  • Meiri v. Shamtoubi: S. ___ .) For this reason, a separate two- year statute of limitations applies. (Vafi v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="199+Cal.+15"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">199 Cal. 15</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="237+Cal.App.4th+1375"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wong v. Stoler (2014) 237 Cal.App.4th 1375</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: 15 We note that in the commercial context “ ‘rescission is intended to restore the parties as nearly as possible to their former positions.’ ” (Wong v. Stoler (2015) [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="167+Cal.App.4th+156"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Wood v. Jamison (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 156</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="28+Cal.3d+668"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Woods v. Superior (1980) 28 Cal.3d 668</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Superior Court (1981) 28 Cal.3d 668, 674.) Because this case turns on the proper interpretation of section 3000, our review is functionally the same under either form of mandamus. IV. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="181+Cal.App.4th+752"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 752</a>

  • Schrage v. Schrage: Appeals Bd. (2010) “Errors of substantive law are within the jurisdiction of a court and are not typically acts beyond the court’s fundamental authority to act.”.) 11 Michael... [context]

Y

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="68+Cal.2d+67"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">68 Cal.2d 67</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Board of Medical Examiners 8 (1968) 68 Cal.2d 67, 75 the purpose of independent judgment review is to surround individual liberty rights “with a panoply of legal protection”. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="36+Cal.4th+1028"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2004) 36 Cal.4th 1028</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="39+Cal.3d+197"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yarbrough v. Superior (1984) 39 Cal.3d 197</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 197, 203–204; Smith v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="38+Cal.App.5th+453"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yarbrough v. Superior (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 453</a>

  • Gann v. Acosta: Ogbuehi (2019) .) Assuming, without deciding, that an appellate court has similar discretion, we conclude Gann’s personal and property rights are unaffected by this litigation. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="57+Cal.App.5th+25"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yazdi v. Dental (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 25</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Dental Bd. of California (2020) .) In that case, the Second District Court of Appeal considered the application of Conservatorship of O. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="18+Cal.App.5th+953"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yeh v. Tai (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 953</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="33+Cal.App.5th+1178"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">York v. City (2018) 33 Cal.App.5th 1178</a>

  • Conservatorship of Farrant: City of Los Angeles (2019) ; see Cal. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: City of Los Angeles (2019) owner bears ' heavy burden of showing that a regulation as applied to a particular parcel is ripe for a taking claim ' .) Abatti also offers no analysis... [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: City of Los Angeles (2019) owner bears ' heavy burden of showing that a regulation as applied to a particular parcel is ripe for a taking claim ' .) Abatti also offers no analysis... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="942+F.3d+554"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">942 F.3d 554</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: United Parcel Service, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2019) 942 F.3d 554, 599.) Limon’s citation to Midwest Airlines does not aid him. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="24+Cal.App.5th+1178"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Young v. Fish & Game Com. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1178</a>

  • Barrow v. Holmes: An appellate court may affirm a lower‑court order when the result is correct under any viable theory, even if the trial court’s reasoning is different.
  • Robertson v. Saadat: Fish & Game Com. (2018) –1193.) DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s briefing on appeal largely focuses on the trial court’s sustaining the demurrers to the tort causes of action in the SAC on the basis that plaint... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="159+Cal.App.4th+884"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Young v. Horizon West (2007) 159 Cal.App.4th 884</a>

  • Holley v. Silverado Senior Living Management: Osborne Development Corp. (2008) where the trial court’s determination “turned on the resolution of conflicts in the evidence or on factual 5 inferences to be drawn from the evidence... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="147+Cal.App.4th+1078"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Young v. Mc (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th 1078</a>

  • Goebner v. Super. Ct.: McCoy (2007) avoiding statutory interpretations that would “ ‘render any part of a statute superfluous’ ”.) Second, McDonald insists — citing no legal authority ... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="5+Cal.3d+480"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Younger v. County (1970) 5 Cal.3d 480</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: County of El Dorado (1971) 5 Cal.3d 480, 491 describing ordinary mandamus actions.) An ordinary mandamus suit permits judicial review of . . . quasi-legislative acts of public agencies. (Carrancho v. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: County of El Dorado (1971) 5 Cal.3d 480, 491 describing ordinary mandamus actions.) An ordinary mandamus suit permits judicial review of . . . quasi-legislative acts of public agencies. (Carrancho v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="68+Cal.2d+336"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">68 Cal.2d 336</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Wolfson (1968) 68 Cal.2d 336, 348-351); obtaining a temporary restraining order to perpetuate a false representation concerning a party (see Siam v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="69+Cal.App.4th+1377"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yu v. Signet (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 1377</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Signet Bank/Virginia (1999) -1391).22 The allegations in the second cause of action of the complaint do not support a claim for abuse of process. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="62+Cal.4th+919"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage (2013) 62 Cal.4th 919</a>

  • Limon v. Circle K Stores: App.3d 783, 787.) Code of Civil Procedure, section 367 undoubtedly relates to standing in that it largely prohibits persons from pursuing claims they themselves do not own. (Yvanova v. [context]
  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) .) Regardless of a trial court’s stated reasons for sustaining a demurrer, we must affirm “ ‘if any one of the several grounds of demurrer is well taken.’ ” (Aubry v. [context]
  • Knapp v. Ginsberg: Ratification can be used to imbue a voidable transaction with full legal force and effect (Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) -930), [context]

Z

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="146+Cal.App.4th+1474"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Zamos v. Stroud (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1474</a>

  • Royals v. Lu: Titan Electric Corp. (2007) , italics omitted.) Under the statutory scheme governing attachments in California (Code Civ. [context]
  • Keading v. Keading: Titan Electric Corp. (2007) , fn. omitted.) The purpose of a writ of attachment is to ensure recovery of payment in the event judgment is entered. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="32+Cal.4th+958"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Zamos v. Stroud (2002) 32 Cal.4th 958</a>

  • Maleti v. Wickers: Even if the malicious prosecution defendant had probable cause to initiate the suit under a particular theory, his or her decision to continue to prosecute the case on that theory after learning it wa... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="166+Cal.App.4th+615"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Zanelli v. McGrath (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 615</a>

  • Clark v. Smith: A revocable inter vivos trust functions as a probate‑avoidance mechanism, so property transferred to the trust is not subject to probate administration upon the settlor’s death,
  • Boshernitsan v. Bach: McGrath (2008) –634; Steinhart v. [context]
  • Pearce v. Briggs: McGrath (2008) .)” The Pearce Parties further argue: “Jack’s subsequent recording of an affidavit of death of a joint tenant and his later conveyances failed to transfer Ruth’s interest that he did no... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="107+Cal.App.4th+1167"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Zapanta v. Universal (2002) 107 Cal.App.4th 1167</a>

  • Chui v. Chui: Universal Care, Inc. (2003) .) Thus, as Scruton indicated, the court could reject a guardian ad litem’s repudiation of an agreement if the court determines the repudiation is “adverse to the best inte... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="201+Cal.App.4th+716"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Zetterberg v. State (2012) 201 Cal.App.4th 716</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: State of California (2011) -734 (Bautista) declaratory relief . . . does not confer 75 upon the court the authority to make pronouncements in a field reserved to other branches of government. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: State of California (2011) -734 (Bautista) declaratory relief . . . does not confer 75 upon the court the authority to make pronouncements in a field reserved to other branches of government. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="64+Cal.App.4th+545"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 545</a>

  • Donkin v. Donkin: Nickel (1998) (Ziegler), Division Three of this court concluded that “a non-attorney trustee who represents a trust in court is representing and affecting the interests of the beneficiary... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="47+Cal.App.5th+73"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Zolly v. City (2019) 47 Cal.App.5th 73</a>

  • Ring v. Harmon: City of Oakland (2020) .) In that circumstance, “unlike when a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, we determine only whether the plaintiff stated a cause of action, [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="116+Cal.App.4th+1324"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Zuccaro v. United California Bank (2003) 116 Cal.App.4th 1324</a>

A

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="106+Cal.App.4th+257"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">adopting the definition of confidential relationship articulated in Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (2002) 106 Cal.App.4th 257</a>

C

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="1+Cal.App.5th+198"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cites ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198</a>

  • Buskirk v. Buskirk: Retzlaff (2016) , but this case refutes Mother’s argument. (Id. at p. 217 “Generally, a properly verified complaint—or in this case a properly verified petition—may be treated as a declaration or affi... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="181+Cal.App.4th+282"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">counsel and request new counsel be appointed’”]; In re Z.N. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 282</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: N. (2009) Marsden principles apply in dependency proceedings.) 7 unable to calm down and the social worker asked her to leave, Patricia threatened the social worker... [context]

F

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="54+Cal.2d+380"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">forgeries”]; Elsinore Union Elementary Sch. Dist. of Riverside Cty. v. Kastorff 54 Cal.2d 380</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: Kastorff (1960) 54 Cal.2d 380, 388 “inadvertent clerical error of omitting” cost of plumbing from a bid; M. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="519+U.S.+102"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">forms of state action’”]; see generally M.L.B. v. S.L.J. 519 U.S. 102</a>

  • In re Samuel A.: J. (1996) .) Patricia’s right to actively participate in this dependency proceeding may not be disregarded for the sake of 9 expediency. (See In re Josiah S. (2002) 102 Cal. [context]

G

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="185+Cal.App.4th+903"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">generally Wolf v. CDS Devco (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 903</a>

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="197+Cal.+50"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">grounds in La Mesa, Lemon Grove & Spring Val. Irr. Dist. v. Halley 197 Cal. 50</a>

  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.: Halley (1925) -60.) The Merchants court further explained that these rights are indistinguishable 22 from other private rights, and are protected under the state and federal constitutions. (Merchants. [context]
  • Abatti v. Imperial Irrigation District: Halley (1925) -60.) The Merchants court further explained that these rights are indistinguishable 22 from other private rights, and are protected under the state and federal constitutions. (Merchants. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="357+U.S.+275"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">grounds sub nom. Ivanhoe Irr. Dist. v. McCracken 357 U.S. 275</a>

I

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="95+Cal.App.4th+829"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">integrity of judicial process]; DCH Health Services Corp. v. Waite (2001) 95 Cal.App.4th 829</a>

  • Doe v. Yim: App.5th 1115, 1129 (O’Gara Coach) affirming disqualification of company’s former president and COO as counsel for former employees suing company, [context]

P

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="37+Cal.2d+696"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">plumbing from a bid]; M. F. Kemper Const. Co. v. City of Los Angeles 37 Cal.2d 696</a>

  • Estate of Eskra: City of Los Angeles (1951) 37 Cal.2d 696, 702 construction company’s negligence in calculating total in preparing bid.) More fundamentally, Donovan did not purport to overrule Casey... [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="12+Cal.2d+378"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pp. 387-388; El Camino Irr. Dist. v. El Camino Land Corp. 12 Cal.2d 378</a>

S

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="53+Cal.App.5th+675"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">see, e.g., King v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 675</a>

  • Li v. Super. Ct.: Bank National Assn. (2020) applied to review of punitive damages award; Morgan v. [context]

<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="22+Cal.App.4th+1460"" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">states otherwise”]; see also Abbett Electric Corp. v. Storek (1993) 22 Cal.App.4th 1460</a>

Last updated September 05, 2025.