14 Cited authorities

People v. Morris
53 Cal.3d 152 (Cal. 1991) Cited 568 times
Requiring use of peremptory challenges and dissatisfaction with jury to claim erroneous denial of challenge for cause
FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima
231 Cal.App.3d 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 288 times 4 Legal Analyses
Affirming summary judgment
U.S. v. Phaknikone
605 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2010) Cited 83 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an evidentiary error is harmless if it did not have a "substantial and injurious effect" on the jury's verdict
Juge v. County of Sacramento
12 Cal.App.4th 59 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 95 times
Holding that a "trial court has the inherent power to grant summary judgment on a ground not explicitly tendered by the moving party" if the party opposing the motion had an opportunity to respond to the issue
Bowen v. Ryan
163 Cal.App.4th 916 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 50 times
In Bowen, a civil case, a dentist who had treated as many as 45,000 patients during his 28-year career was accused of choking a patient in order to give him an injection and then shoving him against a wall.
Brokopp v. Ford Motor Co.
71 Cal.App.3d 841 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) Cited 116 times
In Brokopp the court stated: “ ‘The knowledge, opinions, and report of an expert consulted by an attorney in preparation of his case remain immune from disclosure under the attorney’s work-product privilege as long as the expert does not change his status as a consultant-expert.
People v. Hoze
195 Cal.App.3d 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) Cited 22 times
In People v. Hoze (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 949, 955, this court found no error because as a matter of law the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting impeachment with defendant’s priors.
Webb v. Van Noort
239 Cal.App.2d 472 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) Cited 16 times
Docket No. 504. January 19, 1966. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert K. Meyers, Judge. Affirmed. Assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council. Action for wrongful death resulting from a nonimpact automobile accident. Judgment for defendants affirmed. Philander Brooks Beadle, John T. Tully and Barreiro Dilling for Plaintiffs and Appellants. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle Best and William B. Boone for Defendants and Respondents. BROWN (R.M.), J. Plaintiffs
Larson v. Larsen
72 Cal.App. 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925) Cited 9 times
In Larson the court said: "It has been repeatedly held that it is not competent to prove the commission of independent crimes by the defendant, the evidence of which has no tendency to prove some material fact in connection with the particular crime charged.
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
Section 352 - Balancing of probative value with prejudice
Cal. Evid. Code § 352 Cited 12,894 times 5 Legal Analyses
Giving a trial court discretion to exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury"
Section 1101 - Evidence of character to prove conduct
Cal. Evid. Code § 1101 Cited 6,088 times 2 Legal Analyses
Regarding admissibility of character evidence
Section 1200 - Hearsay rule
Cal. Evid. Code § 1200 Cited 2,215 times
Prohibiting the introduction of "a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated" subject to certain exceptions
Section 1104 - Traits of care or skill
Cal. Evid. Code § 1104 Cited 40 times
Excluding evidence of an employee's prior accidents, when the employer assumes vicarious liability for the employee's negligence

Shiffer'S Mil No. 6 To Exclude Character Evidence & Evidence of Prior Bad Acts Relating To Shiffer'S Social Networking Posts

14 Cited authorities

Requiring use of peremptory challenges and dissatisfaction with jury to claim erroneous denial of challenge for cause

Affirming summary judgment

Holding that an evidentiary error is harmless if it did not have a "substantial and injurious effect" on the jury's verdict

Holding that a "trial court has the inherent power to grant summary judgment on a ground not explicitly tendered by the moving party" if the party opposing the motion had an opportunity to respond to the issue

In Bowen, a civil case, a dentist who had treated as many as 45,000 patients during his 28-year career was accused of choking a patient in order to give him an injection and then shoving him against a wall.

In Brokopp the court stated: “ ‘The knowledge, opinions, and report of an expert consulted by an attorney in preparation of his case remain immune from disclosure under the attorney’s work-product privilege as long as the expert does not change his status as a consultant-expert.

In People v. Hoze (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 949, 955, this court found no error because as a matter of law the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting impeachment with defendant’s priors.

In Larson the court said: "It has been repeatedly held that it is not competent to prove the commission of independent crimes by the defendant, the evidence of which has no tendency to prove some material fact in connection with the particular crime charged.

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Giving a trial court discretion to exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury"

Regarding admissibility of character evidence

Prohibiting the introduction of "a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated" subject to certain exceptions

Excluding evidence of an employee's prior accidents, when the employer assumes vicarious liability for the employee's negligence