§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. BIANE

Respondent, Jeffrey Scott Burum, Request for Judicial Notice

30 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Posey

    32 Cal.4th 193 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 902 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that venue is a question of law for the court to determine, and overruling previous authority that venue is a question of fact for the jury

  2. People v. Lee

    51 Cal.4th 620 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 679 times
    Finding of premeditation supported, where fact that defendant carried a loaded handgun indicated he had considered the possibility of a violent encounter

  3. People v. Simon

    25 Cal.4th 1082 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 245 times
    Explaining that "the basic rationale of the forfeiture doctrine" is " ‘ " ‘to encourage a defendant to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected or avoided and a fair trial had’ " ’ "

  4. People v. Diedrich

    31 Cal.3d 263 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 326 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding omission of unanimity instruction prejudicial where defendant's defenses to two possible acts of bribery underlying single charged offense differed

  5. People v. Torres

    198 Cal.App.4th 1131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 64 times
    Finding § 136.1 "defines a family of 20 related offenses"

  6. Rosen v. St. Josephs Hospital of Orange County

    193 Cal.App.4th 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 60 times
    Affirming judgments entered in favor of defendants after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, and concluding that plaintiff/appellant's variously named causes of action (id. at p. 457) actually "constituted spoliation of evidence claims" (id. at p. 455).

  7. Hughes Electronics Corp. v. Citibank Delaware

    120 Cal.App.4th 251 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 58 times
    In Hughes, we applied the reasoning and conclusion of Hambrecht and found that where the parties' agreement stated that it was" 'governed by the laws of the state of New York,'" the term "laws" incorporated all of the state's laws, rejecting the idea that "when faced with an unqualified choice of law contractual provision, a court is free to pick and choose which of a chosen jurisdiction's laws to apply."

  8. Martin v. Szeto

    32 Cal.4th 445 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 49 times

    No. S103417 February 19, 2004 Appeal from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 999134, A. James Robertson II, Judge. Law Offices of Mattaniah Eytan, Mattaniah Eytan, Eric Schenk and Andrea R. Widburg for Defendants and Appellants. Craig K. Martin, in pro. per.; and Melissa L. Foster for Plaintiff and Respondent. WERDEGAR, J. We granted review to resolve a conflict in the lower courts over the proper interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.7. The section permits

  9. City of Hawthorne ex rel. Wohlner v. H&C Disposal Co.

    109 Cal.App.4th 1668 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 50 times
    Looking to federal cases in interpreting the CFCA, including the public disclosure provisions

  10. Day v. Sharp

    50 Cal.App.3d 904 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 87 times
    In Day v. Sharp, 128 Tenn. 340, 161 S.W. 994, the defendant had been found ineligible to hold a county office. Thereafter the county court elected him to the same office.

  11. Section 452 - Matters permitting judicial notice

    Cal. Evid. Code § 452   Cited 7,900 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting notice to be taken of the "[o]fficial acts of the . . . judicial departments . . . of any state of the United States"

  12. Section 451 - Matters requiring judicial notice

    Cal. Evid. Code § 451   Cited 847 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Asserting when "[j]udicial notice shall be taken."

  13. Section 1090 - Financial interest in contract made in official capacity; purchaser at sale made in official capacity

    Cal. Gov. Code § 1090   Cited 260 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting public employees and officers from being "financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members"

  14. Section 860 - Action by public agency to determine validity of matter

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 860   Cited 218 times

    A public agency may upon the existence of any matter which under any other law is authorized to be determined pursuant to this chapter, and for 60 days thereafter, bring an action in the superior court of the county in which the principal office of the public agency is located to determine the validity of such matter. The action shall be in the nature of a proceeding in rem. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 860 Added by Stats. 1961, Ch. 1479.

  15. Section 450 - Must be authorized or required by law

    Cal. Evid. Code § 450   Cited 186 times
    Specifying procedures for taking judicial notice

  16. Section 6063 - Publication once a week for three successive weeks

    Cal. Gov. Code § 6063   Cited 24 times
    Requiring 21 days for completion of publication, which occurred Nov. 7, 2007

  17. Section 9054 - Obtaining money or other thing of value upon pretense that person can influence legislative body

    Cal. Gov. Code § 9054   Cited 5 times

    Every person who obtains, or seeks to obtain, money or other thing of value from another person upon a pretense, claim, or representation that he can or will improperly influence in any manner the action of any member of a legislative body in regard to any vote or legislative matter, is guilty of a felony. Upon the trial no person otherwise competent as a witness may be excused from testifying concerning the offense charged on the grounds that the testimony may criminate himself, or subject him to