§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition Objections

undefined

21 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Sanchez

    63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 1,515 times
    Holding that case-specific out-of-court statements offered by an expert and not otherwise admissible are necessarily offered for their truth, in violation of the Confrontation Clause

  2. Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California

    55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 768 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Finding trial court properly excluded expert testimony

  3. People v. Mendoza

    23 Cal.4th 896 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 474 times
    In People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 4 P.3d 265 (Mendoza), a jury convicted the defendants of murder without specifying the degree but also found true the special circumstance that it was committed during a robbery.

  4. Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc.

    158 Cal.App.4th 1582 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 281 times
    Affirming trial court's award of fees, without allocation, where contract and misrepresentation claims arose from same operative facts

  5. People v. McDonald

    37 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 550 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding exclusion of expert on reliability of eyewitness testimony was an abuse of discretion

  6. People v. Stoll

    49 Cal.3d 1136 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 309 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding Kelly inapplicable to psychological methods that were “not new to psychology or the law”

  7. People v. Rodriguez

    58 Cal.4th 587 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 151 times
    Finding no Confrontation Clause violation when the prosecution introduced a girl's hearsay statement through an expert, but the defendant had the opportunity to and did call her as his own witness

  8. Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med., Ctr.

    159 Cal.App.4th 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 156 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing entry of summary judgment in medical malpractice case based on the trial court's erroneous exclusion of the declaration by appellants' sole expert on the applicable standard of care

  9. Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC

    2 Cal.5th 536 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 120 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Perry, the party opposing summary judgment could have sought statutory relief from its failure to disclose, but absent the granting of such relief the experts’ testimony was barred under the express statutory language.

  10. Lewis Jorge Construction Management, Inc. v. Pomona Unified School District

    34 Cal.4th 960 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 156 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding breach did not "directly or necessarily cause [contractor's] loss," where contractor alleged breach caused contractor's surety to reduce contractor's "bonding" rating, and that reduction in bonding rating caused loss of other prospective contracts

  11. Rule 3.1113 - Memorandum

    Cal. R. 3.1113   Cited 106 times

    (a) Memorandum in support of motion A party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported. (b) Contents of memorandum The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments