§Why CasetextPricing

CEJA v. RUDOLPH & SLETTEN, INC.

Appellant, Nancy Ceja, Answer to Petition for Review

23 Cited authorities

  1. In re Marriage of Ellis

    101 Cal.App.4th 400 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 69 times
    Recognizing a general rule that retiree medical benefits are not divisible community property

  2. Estate of DePasse

    97 Cal.App.4th 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 36 times
    Outlining the California statutes governing marriage

  3. In re Marriage of Ramirez

    165 Cal.App.4th 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 26 times

    No. E043180. July 30, 2008. Appeal from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. RID209737, Becky Dugan, Judge. Darrell J. York for Appellant. Ellen Weinfurtner for Respondent. OPINION RAMIREZ, P. J. Jorge L. Ramirez (Jorge) appeals from a judgment annulling his second marriage to Lilia Llamas (Lilia), following a bifurcated trial in which the court found the marriage void due to fraud. The trial court found the first marriage between Jorge and Lilia was a void attempt at a Mexican marriage performed

  4. In re Marriage of Guo & Sun

    186 Cal.App.4th 1491 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 17 times

    No. B215595. July 28, 2010. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. GD041530, Non Anne Walla, Commissioner.) Law Office of Robert S. Altagen, Robert S. Altagen and Hanwei Cheng for Appellant. Law Offices of George L. Young and Steven L. Sugars for Respondent. OPINION KITCHING, J. INTRODUCTION The superior court entered a judgment nullifying the marriage of appellant Xiao Hua Sun and respondent Xia Guo on the ground that Sun was married to another woman when he purportedly married

  5. County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie

    19 Cal.2d 634 (Cal. 1942)   Cited 172 times
    In County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie (1942) 19 Cal.2d 634, 639 [ 122 P.2d 526], it was held that "... in construing a remedial statute, like a law concerning the rendition of charitable aid to indigents and recovery therefor, reason must have its just proportion, and in interpreting the expressions employed, the court is free to study the history and purposes of the enactment and the previous state of the legislation on the subject, as well as other statutes in parimateria and the benefits sought to be provided."

  6. In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis

    162 Cal.App.4th 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 15 times
    Extending the doctrine to domestic partners

  7. In re Marriage of Doherty

    103 Cal.App.4th 895 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 20 times
    Exercising discretion to treat dismissed appeal as writ petition

  8. In re Marriage of Vryonis

    202 Cal.App.3d 712 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 36 times
    Explaining that the essence of covenant of good faith and fair dealing is objectively reasonable conduct

  9. In re Marriage of Tejeda

    179 Cal.App.4th 973 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 11 times

    No. H033001. November 25, 2009. Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, No. FL024594, Irwin Joseph, Commissioner. Baskin Grant, Caleb S. Baskin and Heidi Simonson for Appellant. Dolly Ares for Respondent. OPINION McADAMS, J. This case requires us to construe Family Code section 2251. Subject to the requirements of that provision, a marriage that is invalid due to a legal infirmity may be recognized as a putative marriage. Property acquired during a putative marriage (quasi-marital property)

  10. Welch v. State

    83 Cal.App.4th 1374 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 14 times

    F033421 (Super. Ct. No. 155280) Filed August 30, 2000; pub. order September 27, 2000 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. William A. Mayhew, Judge. Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios Ladine, Duane L. Nelson and Lisa W. Chao for Plaintiff and Appellant. William M. McMillan, Brelend C. Gowan and William R. Morrisroe for Defendants and Respondents State of California and California Department of Transportation. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Pamela Smith-Steward, Chief

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer