§Why CasetextPricing

VALLI, MARRIAGE OF

Respondent, Randy Valli, Answer to Petition for Review

10 Cited authorities

  1. In re Marriage of Haines

    33 Cal.App.4th 277 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 237 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 Brooks & Robinson

    169 Cal.App.4th 176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 81 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

  3. In re Marriage of Lucas

    27 Cal.3d 808 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 150 times
    Discussing history of this enactment

  4. In re Marriage of Lund

    174 Cal.App.4th 40 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 43 times
    Holding that "Agreement to Establish Interest in Property" unambiguously effected a transmutation of a spouse's separate property into community property

  5. In re Marriage of Holtemann

    166 Cal.App.4th 1166 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 30 times
    Finding a transmutation agreement where trust stated that spouse's property was "hereby transmuted from his separate property to the community property"

  6. In re Marriage of Steinberger

    91 Cal.App.4th 1449 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Multiplying "by the total benefit received"

  7. In re Marriage of Rives

    130 Cal.App.3d 138 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 34 times
    Finding improper expert's valuation of a business's goodwill based on potential income rather than historical production and income figures

  8. Valli v. Valli

    195 Cal.App.4th 776 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. B222435. May 18, 2011. REVIEW GRANTED August 24, 2011 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BD414038, Mark A. Juhas, Judge. Jaffe and Clemens, William S. Ryden and Nancy Braden-Parker for Respondent and Appellant. Walzer Melcher, Christopher C. Melcher; and Garrett C. Dailey for Petitioner and Respondent. OPINION MOSK, J. INTRODUCTION Respondent and appellant Randy Valli (Randy) appeals from the trial court's order in the parties' marital dissolution proceeding awarding petitioner

  9. Section 2042 - Proceeds of life insurance

    26 U.S.C. § 2042   Cited 135 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a life insurance policy can be included in the decedent's gross estate for estate tax purposes as if owned by the decedent, if the decedent possessed "incidents of ownership" in the insurance policy

  10. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 344 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