29 Cited authorities

Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,846 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., Marin County
495 U.S. 604 (1990) Cited 701 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that personal service in a state is sufficient for establishing personal jurisdiction
People v. Guerra
37 Cal.4th 1067 (Cal. 2006) Cited 1,589 times
Finding that under the state of mind exception, the trial court properly admitted witness's statements that she believed defendant came into her house as she napped and that she was afraid of him because it was probative of her lack of consent to sexual intercourse in the attempted rape
Nwosu v. Uba
122 Cal.App.4th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 1,638 times
Noting that the California Rules of Court require factual assertions to be supported by citations to the record
Benach v. County of Los Angeles
149 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 949 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding photocopying costs for exhibits prepared for use at trial were recoverable under discretionary provision of § 1033.5, subd. (c)
City of Montebello v. Vasquez
1 Cal.5th 409 (Cal. 2016) Cited 182 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that suits against individual board members based on their vote arise from protected conduct and citing both San Ramon and Schwarzburd with approval
R.D. v. P.M.
202 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 206 times
Holding that civil harassment restraining order is appealable as an order granting an injunction; § 904.1, subd. [order granting or refusing to grant an injunction is appealable].
Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta
30 Cal.3d 800 (Cal. 1982) Cited 492 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Reserve Ins. Co. and Donald B. MacNeal, Inc., the excess insurer's liability arose from a policy term providing that the excess insurers assumed liability for any excess over the "amount recoverable" under the underlying policy.
SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
121 Cal.App.4th 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 242 times
Explaining that the doctrine of implied findings " directs the appellate court to presume that the trial court made all factual findings necessary to support the judgment so long as substantial evidence supports those findings and applies unless the omissions and ambiguities in the statement of decision are brought to the attention of the superior court in a timely manner"
Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co.
35 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2005) Cited 234 times 8 Legal Analyses
In Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 35 Cal. 4th 747, 754, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 648, 110 P.3d 903 (2005), the California Supreme Court held that "[p]olicy exclusions are unenforceable to the extent that they conflict with section 530 and the efficient proximate cause doctrine."
Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions
Cal. R. 8.1115 Cited 73,947 times
(a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary
Rule 8.104 - Time to appeal
Cal. R. 8.104 Cited 2,117 times
(a)Normal time (1) Unless a statute or rules 8.108, 8.702, or 8.712 provides otherwise, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of: (A) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled "Notice of Entry" of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; (B) 60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled "Notice of Entry" of
Rule 8.90 - Privacy in opinions
Cal. R. 8.90 Cited 877 times
(a) Application (1) This rule provides guidance on the use of names in appellate court opinions. (2) Reference to juveniles in juvenile court proceedings is governed by rule 8.401(a). (3) Where other laws establish specific privacy-protection requirements that differ from the provisions in this rule, those specific requirements supersede the provisions in this rule. (b)Persons protected To protect personal privacy interests, in all opinions, the reviewing court should consider referring to the following

Request

29 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

Holding that personal service in a state is sufficient for establishing personal jurisdiction

Finding that under the state of mind exception, the trial court properly admitted witness's statements that she believed defendant came into her house as she napped and that she was afraid of him because it was probative of her lack of consent to sexual intercourse in the attempted rape

Noting that the California Rules of Court require factual assertions to be supported by citations to the record

Holding photocopying costs for exhibits prepared for use at trial were recoverable under discretionary provision of § 1033.5, subd. (c)

Holding that suits against individual board members based on their vote arise from protected conduct and citing both San Ramon and Schwarzburd with approval

Holding that civil harassment restraining order is appealable as an order granting an injunction; § 904.1, subd. [order granting or refusing to grant an injunction is appealable].

In Reserve Ins. Co. and Donald B. MacNeal, Inc., the excess insurer's liability arose from a policy term providing that the excess insurers assumed liability for any excess over the "amount recoverable" under the underlying policy.

In Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 35 Cal. 4th 747, 754, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 648, 110 P.3d 903 (2005), the California Supreme Court held that "[p]olicy exclusions are unenforceable to the extent that they conflict with section 530 and the efficient proximate cause doctrine."