23 Cited authorities

  1. In re Zeth S.

    31 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 1,314 times
    Explaining how " ‘[t]he dependency scheme is a "remarkable system of checks and balances" ’ "
  2. Denham v. Superior Court

    2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 3,576 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming the well settled principle that on appeal, "[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown"
  3. Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

    80 Cal.App.4th 1165 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no estoppel where no coverage potentially existed under the policy
  4. In re Marriage of Haines

    33 Cal.App.4th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 224 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
  5. In re the Marriage Bonds

    24 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 151 times
    Holding presumption applies to marriage dissolution agreements but not premarital agreements
  6. In re Marriage of Burkle

    139 Cal.App.4th 712 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 124 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."
  7. In re Marriage of Fossum

    192 Cal.App.4th 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 80 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that evidence of an agreement may overcome the presumption
  8. In re Marriage of Hoffmeister

    191 Cal.App.3d 351 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 149 times
    Continuing disparity between supported spouse's income and expenses does not justify modification
  9. 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

  10. In re Marriage of Benson

    36 Cal.4th 1096 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 86 times
    Rejecting attempt to enforce alleged oral transmutation
  11. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 15 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)