§Why CasetextPricing

Reply P Reply Iso Mtc Fr Dfp

Reply

9 Cited authorities

  1. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants

    148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 73 times
    Addressing the filing of untimely interrogatory responses with a motion to compel pending

  2. Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach

    59 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 30 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting the city's blanket refusal to release the names of police officers involved in on-duty shootings because a lieutenant's declaration that public disclosure could expose an officer and the officer's family to harassment or retaliatory violence was too vague and speculative when the city offered " ‘no evidence’ of a ‘specific safety concern regarding any particular officer’ "

  3. Abatti v. Superior Court

    112 Cal.App.4th 39 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 40 times
    In Abatti v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 39, this court explained that "[a]lthough a criminal defendant does not have a general constitutional right to discovery [citation], under Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 'the prosecution must disclose to the defense any evidence that is "favorable to the accused" and is "material" on the issue of either guilt or punishment.

  4. Tatum v. Schwartz

    No. Civ. S-06-01440 DFL EFB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2007)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that the plaintiff "tacitly concede[d]" that her claim should be dismissed by failing to address defendants' argument in her opposition, and granting defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to that claim

  5. City of Eureka v. Superior Court of Humboldt Cnty.

    1 Cal.App.5th 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A145701 07-19-2016 CITY OF EUREKA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent; Thadeus Greenson, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Cyndy Day–Wilson, City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mary Blair Angus, County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent. Paul Nicholas Boylan, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Jones, P.J. Cyndy Day–Wilson, City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mary Blair Angus, County Counsel, for Defendant and

  6. R.M. v. First Lutheran Church

    No. B266389 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2017)

    B266389 04-04-2017 R.M., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH et al., Defendants and Respondents. Owen, Patterson & Owen, Gregory James Owen and Susan A. Owen for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wood Smith Henning & Berman, William Robert Johnson; Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, Vangi M. Johnson, for Defendants and Respondents Latonya Dollison and Victoria Leggette. COLLINS, J. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from

  7. Suezaki v. Superior Court

    58 Cal.2d 166 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing Holm and overruling it to the extent it held that "all photographs taken by an investigator and transmitted to an attorney for use on trial are privileged"

  8. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,480 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

  9. Section 24 - [Repealed]

    Okla. Stat. tit. 23 § 24

    Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 24 Repealed by Laws 1996, SB 1034, c. 56, § 30, emerg. eff. 4/8/1996.