23 Cited authorities

  1. In re Marriage of Ellis

    101 Cal.App.4th 400 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 42 times
    Discussing In re Marriage of Havins, 43 Cal.App.4th 414, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 763, 766
  2. In re Marriage of Ramirez

    165 Cal.App.4th 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 20 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

  3. Estate of DePasse

    97 Cal.App.4th 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 23 times
    Outlining the California statutes governing marriage
  4. Guo v. Sun

    186 Cal.App.4th 1491 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 12 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 153 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 Darrin Ellis

    162 Cal.App.4th 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 12 times
    Extending the doctrine to domestic partners
  7. In re Marriage of Tejeda

    179 Cal.App.4th 973 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 7 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)

  8. In re Marriage of Doherty

    103 Cal.App.4th 895 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 12 times

    B156044 Filed November 18, 2002 Certified for Publication Appeal from Superior Court County of Ventura, No. SD021499, Manuel J. Covarrubias, Temp. Judge (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Van Sickle Rowley, Judith D. Rhodes and Paula D. Emmons for Appellant. Judith L. Wong for Respondent. GILBERT, P.J. During wife and husband's marriage, wife's employer pays a portion of the couple's mortgage directly to the lender. Here we conclude there is no community interest in this mortgage subsidy after

  9. In re Marriage of Vryonis

    202 Cal.App.3d 712 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 25 times

    Docket No. B016594. June 30, 1988. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. D127740, Barbara Jean Johnson, Judge. COUNSEL Richard A. Love, Reish Luftman and Duane A. Dauphine for Appellant. Pamela C. Sellers and Lorraine Loder for Respondent. OPINION KLEIN, P.J. Appellant Speros Vryonis, Jr. (Speros) purports to appeal a judgment on bifurcated issues wherein the trial court held respondent Fereshteh R. Vryonis (Fereshteh) had the status of a putative spouse. Regardless of the formal


    194 Cal.App.4th 584 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    No. H034826. 2011-08-10 Nancy CEJA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RUDOLPH & SLETTEN, INC., Defendant and Respondent; Phoenix Ceja et al., Respondent. The Arns Law Firm, San Francisco, Robert S. Arns, Jonathan E. Davis, Steven R. Weinmann, for Plaintiffs and Appellants Nancy Ceja et al. Rankin, Sproat, Mires, Beaty & Reynolds, Oakland, Michael R. Reynolds, Lisa T. Ungerer, for Defendant and Respondent Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. RUSHING Background: Alleged putative wife brought action against her

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 217 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