28 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Lee

    51 Cal.4th 620 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 473 times
    In People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, a case involving attempted rape, our Supreme Court determined that the defendant forfeited his challenge to an instruction defining consent "by failing to object to the trial court's consent instruction or to request any modification or amplification of it at trial.
  2. People v. Posey

    32 Cal.4th 193 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 564 times
    In People v. Posey, supra, 32 Cal.4th 193, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551, 82 P.3d 755, a Marin County Sheriff's detective paged the defendant in San Francisco to arrange a drug purchase.
  3. People v. Simon

    25 Cal.4th 1082 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 151 times
    In People v. Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th 1082, we concluded that "pursuant to the general legal doctrine that a party may forfeit a right by failing to assert it in a timely fashion, a defendant... forfeits a claim of improper venue when he or she fails specifically to raise such an objection prior to the commencement of trial."
  4. People v. Diedrich

    31 Cal.3d 263 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 228 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263 (Diedrich), the defendant was convicted of a single count of bribery, where there was evidence of two distinct bribes.
  5. Rosen v. St. Joseph Hospital

    193 Cal.App.4th 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 50 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).
  6. People v. Torres

    198 Cal.App.4th 1131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 49 times
    Discussing Cal. Penal Code § 136.1
  7. Hughes Electronics Corp. v. Citibank Delaware

    120 Cal.App.4th 251 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 44 times

    No. B164083 June 30, 2004 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC250590, S. James Otero, Judge. Westrup, Klick Associates, R. Duane Westrup, Rhonda Klick, Lawrence R. Cagney and Mark L. VanBuskirk for Defendants and Appellants. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver Hedges, Dale H. Oliver, Michael E. Williams and Michelle R. Fang for Plaintiffs and Respondents. OPINION BOLAND, J. A New York bank and its California customer agreed that disputes arising out of their banking relationship

  8. Martin v. Szeto

    32 Cal.4th 445 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 37 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 33 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 67 times
    In Day v. Sharp, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 123 Cal.Rptr. 918, the plaintiff obtained an equitable decree providing her with a constructive trust on one-seventh of the residual estate of the plaintiff's stepmother.
  11. Section 1090

    Cal. Gov. Code § 1090   Cited 205 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members. Nor shall state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees be purchasers at any sale or vendors at any purchase made by them in their official capacity. (b) An individual shall not aid or abet a Member of the Legislature or

  12. Section 860

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 860   Cited 163 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

  13. Section 450

    Cal. Evid. Code § 450   Cited 89 times

    Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law. Ca. Evid. Code § 450

  14. Section 6063

    Cal. Gov. Code § 6063   Cited 12 times

    Publication of notice pursuant to this section shall be once a week for three successive weeks. Three publications in a newspaper regularly published once a week or oftener, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates, are sufficient. The period of notice commences upon the first day of publication and terminates at the end of the twenty-first day, including therein the first day. Ca. Gov. Code § 6063

  15. Rule 2.1050 - Judicial Council jury instructions

    Cal. R. 2.1050   Cited 77 times

    (a) Purpose The California jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council are the official instructions for use in the state of California. The goal of these instructions is to improve the quality of jury decision making by providing standardized instructions that accurately state the law in a way that is understandable to the average juror. (b) Accuracy The Judicial Council endorses these instructions for use and makes every effort to e;nsure that they accurately state existing law. The articulation