23 Cited authorities

  1. Foust v. San Jose Const. Co., Inc.

    198 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 351 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186-187, the court extensively catalogued the frequency with which appellate courts have declined to reach the merits of a claim raised on appeal because of the absence of a reporter's transcript.
  2. In re Marriage of Flaherty

    31 Cal.3d 637 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 793 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. S.F. 24307. June 17, 1982. Appeal from Superior Court of Shasta County, No. 62049, Richard W. Abbe, Judge. COUNSEL Jay-Allen Eisen, Rothschild Eisen, Michael Rothschild, Anthony S. Dick, Roberta Ranstrom and Wilson Curle for Appellant. Douglas R. Page as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Appellant. Lee A. Lopez and Michael J. Hamilton for Respondent. Jonathan Milberg as Amicus Curiae. OPINION BIRD, C.J. Did the trial court abuse its discretion under the particular facts of this case when it refused

  3. Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.

    21 Cal.4th 121 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 384 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that enjoining a defendant's use of racial epithets at the defendant's workplace was not an unconstitutional prior restraint because it was based "on [his] continuing course of repetitive conduct" that violated employment discrimination law
  4. Fain v. Fain

    75 Cal.App.4th 973 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 318 times   1 Legal Analyses

    B119122 (Super. Ct. No. BP003803) Filed October 21, 1999 Certified for Publication Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gary Klausner, Judge. Affirmed. Eleanor Fain, in pro per; Williams Martinet and Leonard J. Martinet for Petitioner and Appellant Highland Insurance Company. Betty G. Barrington for Objector and Respondent Traci Fain; Kahn, Stern Blaney and Doyle O. Blaney for Objector and Respondent Zjamahl Fain. CROSKEY, J. In this probate matter we consider an appeal

  5. Elkins v. Superior Court

    41 Cal.4th 1337 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 215 times
    Recognizing that "some informality and flexibility have been accepted in marital dissolution proceedings"
  6. Nelson v. Anderson

    72 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 173 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding that obligations violated by limiting plaintiff's role were owed to the corporation because the decisions "amount[ed] to alleged misfeasance or negligence in managing the corporation's business, causing the business to be a total failure"
  7. Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist.

    61 Cal.4th 97 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 96 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Applying the same standard under Government Code Section 12965(b)
  8. Wagner v. Wagner

    162 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 94 times
    Applying section 366.2 to a daughter's claim against her mother's living trust for compensation for time spent caring for her mother during the years immediately preceding her mother's death
  9. Hodges v. Mark

    49 Cal.App.4th 651 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 81 times

    Docket No. B079598. September 20, 1996. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC039608, Madeleine Flier, Judge. COUNSEL Wallace S. Fingerett and Robert A. Lisnow for Defendants and Appellants. Racheal Hodges, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. OPINION VOGEL (C.S.), P.J. This is an appeal following a court trial resulting in a judgment for the plaintiffs, Racheal Hodges and Carlos Hodges, enjoining the defendants, Joel Mark, Paul Calvo, Jeff Mann, and Ivan Campana, from foreclosing

  10. Elena S. v. Kroutik

    247 Cal.App.4th 570 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 40 times
    In Elena S. v. Kroutik, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at pages 575-576, the reviewing court presumed the court commissioner properly obtained a stipulation before issuing a DVRO where there was no reporter's transcript or settled statement.
  11. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 13 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)

  12. Rule 10.960 - Court self-help centers

    Cal. R. 10.960   Cited 3 times

    (a) Scope and application This rule applies to all court-based self-help centers whether the services provided by the center are managed by the court or by an entity other than the court. (b) Purpose and core court function Providing access to justice for self-represented litigants is a priority for California courts. The services provided by court self-help centers facilitate the timely and cost-effective processing of cases involving self-represented litigants and improve the delivery of justice