§Why CasetextPricing

GREEN, MARRIAGE OF

Respondent’s Petition for Review

25 Cited authorities

  1. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.

    14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 838 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a “substantial nexus or connection” approach in applying the California long-arm statute and, in rejecting other approaches, questioning the wisdom “of importing a causation test from tort law to measure a matter that is fundamentally one of relationship and fairness rather than causation”

  2. In re Marriage of Brown

    15 Cal.3d 838 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 505 times
    Holding that retirement benefits " `do not derive from the beneficence of the employer' "

  3. In re Marriage of Rossin

    172 Cal.App.4th 725 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 93 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

  4. In re Marriage of Benson

    36 Cal.4th 1096 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 96 times
    Rejecting attempt to enforce alleged oral transmutation

  5. In re Marriage Lehman

    18 Cal.4th 169 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that the superior court did not err in apportioning retirement benefits "as enhanced between community and separate property interests through its application of the time rule"

  6. In re Marriage of Fithian

    10 Cal.3d 592 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 148 times

    Docket No. L.A. 30165. January 3, 1974. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. D-45860, Frank Domenichini, Judge. COUNSEL Lawton, Christensen, Fazio, McDonnell, Briggs Ward and Steven E. Briggs for Appellant. Schlegel, Friedemann Menke, David L. Price and John K. York for Respondent. Marilyn Hall Patel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent. OPINION MOSK, J. James E. Fithian, Jr., appeals from an interlocutory judgment ordering the dissolution of his marriage to Camille J. Fithian and

  7. In re Marriage of Gillmore

    29 Cal.3d 418 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 104 times
    In Gillmore, the California Supreme Court held that an employed spouse's election to postpone receipt of a pension impairs the interest of the other spouse in the pension.

  8. Okos v. Okos

    137 Ohio App. 3d 563 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that a wife was not obliged to provide documentation that she spent separate money on a marital residence, where her husband agreed to those facts in his testimony

  9. In re Marriage of Sonne

    48 Cal.4th 118 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 22 times

    No. S166221. February 22, 2010. Appeal from the Superior Court of Monterey County, No. DR41290, Robert A. O'Farrell, Judge. Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack Chong and Robert A. Roth for Appellant Gordon Albert Sonne. Barbara A. DiFranza as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Appellant Gordon Albert Sonne. Law Offices of Bernard N. Wolf, Bernard N. Wolf; Law Office of Billie C. French and Billie C. French for Appellant Theressa Lynn Sonne. OPINION BAXTER, J. Gordon Albert Sonne (Husband), the former Sheriff-Coroner-Public

  10. In re Marriage of Drapeau

    93 Cal.App.4th 1086 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 32 times
    Reversing award of spousal support and remanding because "the trial court should have considered the parties' practice of savings as an element in their MSL [marital standard of living]"

  11. Section 575.1 - Deposit of Contributions

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 575.1   Cited 1 times

    Any deposit of contributions for, but not limited to, service credit elections, except those made pursuant to Government Code section 21073.1, to be made in installments, must be made by payroll deduction upon such installment plan as may be elected, subject to the following conditions: (a) Installments must be uniform for each payroll period; (b) The installments may not be less than $15.00 per month (or the semi-monthly, bi-weekly or quadri-weekly equivalent); and (c) The number of installments

  12. Rule 8.264 - Filing, finality, and modification of decision

    Cal. R. 8.264   Cited 509 times

    (a)Filing the decision (1) The clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly file all opinions and orders of the court and promptly send copies showing the filing date to the parties and, when relevant, to the lower court or tribunal. (2) A decision by opinion must identify the participating justices, including the author of the majority opinion and of any concurring or dissenting opinion, or the justices participating in a "by the court" opinion. (Subd (a) amended effective January

  13. 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