§Why CasetextPricing

Ubaldo Rodriguez vs. Fredrick Ulloa

Motion in Limine

13 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Morris

    53 Cal.3d 152 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 571 times
    Requiring use of peremptory challenges and dissatisfaction with jury to claim erroneous denial of challenge for cause

  2. People v. Fierro

    1 Cal.4th 173 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 447 times
    Finding due process violation

  3. Clemente v. State of California

    40 Cal.3d 202 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that the admission of immigration status, "even if marginally relevant [regarding damages], was highly prejudicial"

  4. Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co.

    79 Cal.App.3d 325 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 132 times
    In Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 325 (Hyatt), the plaintiff was driving in the right lane on a highway late at night when his vehicle apparently struck a glancing blow against the defendant's boat trailer, which was parked alongside the highway, then skidded or rolled into a telephone pole.

  5. Franklin v. Gibson

    138 Cal.App.3d 340 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 12 times
    In Franklin, the court reversed the jury's "mysterious[]" findings that the two injured plaintiffs' failure to wear seat belts contributed to 30 percent and 35 percent of their injuries, explaining that defendant's failure to offer any expert testimony meant that the jurors' "verdict is explicable only as a guess, since the jury was not guided by evidence."

  6. Charbonneau v. Superior Court

    42 Cal.App.3d 505 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 3 times

    Docket No. 24733. August 30, 1974. COUNSEL Harney, Charbonneau Bambic and David M. Harney for Petitioner. John H. Larson, County Counsel, and Dwight V. Nelsen, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent. OPINION STEPHENS, Acting P.J. In this proceeding in prohibition, petitioner Robert L. Charbonneau, an attorney, seeks to set aside an order of the Los Angeles Superior Court adjudging him in contempt of court and sentencing him to jail for two days. Prohibition is a proper means of considering petitioner's

  7. Section 402 - Disputed preliminary facts; presence of jury

    Cal. Evid. Code § 402   Cited 3,761 times
    Providing a procedure to determine "the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury"

  8. Section 2034.260 - Procedure and requirements of exchange

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.260   Cited 148 times
    Concerning method and content of exchange

  9. Section 2034.210 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.210   Cited 130 times   1 Legal Analyses

    After the setting of the initial trial date for the action, any party may obtain discovery by demanding that all parties simultaneously exchange information concerning each other's expert trial witnesses to the following extent: (a) Any party may demand a mutual and simultaneous exchange by all parties of a list containing the name and address of any natural person, including one who is a party, whose oral or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence

  10. Section 2034.310 - Calling expert not previously designated as witness

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.310   Cited 50 times
    Permitting a party to call an expert as a trial witness if that expert was designated by another party and was thereafter deposed

  11. Section 2034.610 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.610   Cited 31 times

    (a) On motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to do either or both of the following: (1) Augment that party's expert witness list and declaration by adding the name and address of any expert witness whom that party has subsequently retained. (2) Amend that party's expert witness declaration with respect to the general substance of the testimony that an expert previously designated is expected to give. (b) A motion under subdivision

  12. Section 2034.280 - Supplemental expert witness list

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.280   Cited 25 times

    (a) Within 20 days after the exchange described in Section 2034.260, any party who engaged in the exchange may submit a supplemental expert witness list containing the name and address of any experts who will express an opinion on a subject to be covered by an expert designated by an adverse party to the exchange, if the party supplementing an expert witness list has not previously retained an expert to testify on that subject. (b) This supplemental list shall be accompanied by an expert witness

  13. Section 2034.710 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.710   Cited 22 times

    (a) On motion of any party who has failed to submit expert witness information on the date specified in a demand for that exchange, the court may grant leave to submit that information on a later date. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be made a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010) to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under exceptional