50 Cited authorities

Santosky v. Kramer
455 U.S. 745 (1982) Cited 8,729 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[b]efore a State may sever ... the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence"
Davis v. Alaska
415 U.S. 308 (1974) Cited 5,685 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services
452 U.S. 18 (1981) Cited 3,579 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that whether the Due Process Clause requires the appointment of counsel is considered on a case-by-case basis
Idaho v. Wright
497 U.S. 805 (1990) Cited 1,691 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that to have "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness," hearsay evidence "must possess indicia of reliability by virtue of its inherent trustworthiness, not by reference to other evidence at trial"
Lilly v. Virginia
527 U.S. 116 (1999) Cited 1,127 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements against penal interest "are suspect insofar as they inculpate other persons" and that "the absence of a promise of leniency to [a declarant] does not enhance his statement's reliability to the level necessary for their untested admission"
In re I.J.
56 Cal.4th 766 (Cal. 2013) Cited 1,339 times
Adopting People v. Hall as a standard for assessing "substantial risk"
People v. Avila
38 Cal.4th 491 (Cal. 2006) Cited 1,574 times
Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to the defendants having recently been in prison, and the trial court admonished the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted
In re Drake M.
211 Cal.App.4th 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 1,058 times
Holding that in cases involving children of " 'tender years,' " a finding of substance abuse "is prima facie evidence of the inability of a parent or guardian to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk of physical harm"
In re S.C.
138 Cal.App.4th 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 1,302 times
Holding appellant's failure to present legal analysis for a claim of error forfeits the issue
Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services v. Gregory C.
13 Cal.4th 952 (Cal. 1996) Cited 1,688 times
Upholding dismissal of appeals for abandonment
Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions
Cal. R. 8.1115 Cited 73,834 times
(a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary
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
Rule 8.360 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae
Cal. R. 8.360 Cited 102 times
(a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in criminal appeals must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed 25,500 words, including footnotes. Such a brief must include a certificate by appellate counsel or an unrepresented defendant stating the number of words in the brief; the person certifying may rely on the word count of the computer program used to prepare

IN RE I.C.

50 Cited authorities

Holding that "[b]efore a State may sever ... the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence"

Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

Holding that whether the Due Process Clause requires the appointment of counsel is considered on a case-by-case basis

Holding that to have "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness," hearsay evidence "must possess indicia of reliability by virtue of its inherent trustworthiness, not by reference to other evidence at trial"

Holding that statements against penal interest "are suspect insofar as they inculpate other persons" and that "the absence of a promise of leniency to [a declarant] does not enhance his statement's reliability to the level necessary for their untested admission"

Adopting People v. Hall as a standard for assessing "substantial risk"

Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to the defendants having recently been in prison, and the trial court admonished the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted

Holding that in cases involving children of " 'tender years,' " a finding of substance abuse "is prima facie evidence of the inability of a parent or guardian to provide regular care resulting in a substantial risk of physical harm"

Holding appellant's failure to present legal analysis for a claim of error forfeits the issue

Upholding dismissal of appeals for abandonment