§Why CasetextPricing

VALLI, MARRIAGE OF

Respondent, Frankie Valli, Petition for Review

58 Cited authorities

  1. In re Marriage of Haines

    33 Cal.App.4th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 233 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that within the context of interspousal property transfers, the "form of title" presumption is overcome by a showing of undue influence

  2. In re Marriage of Burkle

    139 Cal.App.4th 712 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 143 times
    Finding presumption of undue influence rebutted where relevant financial information was provided to attorneys and accountants and wife had been represented by a "number of attorneys, including family law specialists."

  3. In re Marriage of Fossum

    192 Cal.App.4th 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 96 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that evidence of an agreement may overcome the presumption

  4. In re Marriage of Rossin

    172 Cal.App.4th 725 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 92 times

    No. H032258. March 24, 2009. Appeal from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. FL127770, Edward J. Davila, Judge. Law Office of Mary K. Simpson, Mary K. Simpson; Law Office of Mary Bird and Mary C. Bird for Appellant. Law Office of Lance A. Russell and Lance A. Russell for Respondent. OPINION McADAMS, J. In this marital dissolution case, the parties dispute the proper characterization of disability benefits. Prior to the marriage, the wife had purchased a private disability policy, paid all

  5. In re Marriage of Benson

    36 Cal.4th 1096 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 95 times
    Rejecting attempt to enforce alleged oral transmutation

  6. In re Marriage of Brooks & Robinson

    169 Cal.App.4th 176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 78 times

    No. E043770. December 16, 2008. Appeal from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. SBFSS85992, Duke D. Rouse, Judge. Retired judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Michael Brooks, in pro. per., for Appellant. Somers Somers and Richard B. Somers for Respondent Executive Capital Group, Inc. No appearance for Respondent Annikkawa A. Robinson. OPINION KING, J. I. INTRODUCTION After Michael W

  7. Estate of MacDonald

    51 Cal.3d 262 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 129 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting identically worded predecessor to § 852

  8. In re Marriage of Walrath

    17 Cal.4th 907 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 99 times
    Noting that legislative history of former Civil Code section 4800.2 "expressly states that [statute] was enacted to 'reverse the rule of [Lucas, supra, 27 Cal.3d 808], and cases following it, which precluded recognition of the separate property contribution of one of the parties to the acquisition of community property, unless the party could show an agreement between the spouses to the effect that the contribution was not intended to be a gift' "

  9. In re Marriage of Lucas

    27 Cal.3d 808 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 149 times
    Discussing history of this enactment

  10. In re Summers

    332 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 76 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Relying on, inter alia , Haines , 39 Cal.Rptr.2d at 682, and In re Pavich , 191 B.R. 838, 844 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1996)

  11. Section 6

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 6   Cited 23,396 times
    Describing the duties of the Judicial Council

  12. 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

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)