§Why CasetextPricing

M., BIANKA v. S.C.

Petitioner’s Petition for Review

43 Cited authorities

  1. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 10,811 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  2. Abbott v. Abbott

    560 U.S. 1 (2010)   Cited 442 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "ne exeat right is a right of custody under the Convention"

  3. Reid v. Google, Inc.

    50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 1,082 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”

  4. In re Zacharia D

    6 Cal.4th 435 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 763 times
    Finding of detriment would have led to finding that placement was not in minors' best interests

  5. Adoption of Kelsey S

    1 Cal.4th 816 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 610 times
    Holding unconstitutional statutory scheme whereby unwed biological mother could prevent unwed biological father from attaining status of presumed father, whose consent is required for adoption of nonmarital child

  6. Francisco G. v. Superior Court

    91 Cal.App.4th 586 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 276 times
    Affirming juvenile court's determination that reunification was not in child's best interests, in part because parents had previously had their parental rights as to three siblings terminated due to drug abuse and domestic violence

  7. County of San Diego v. Gorham

    186 Cal.App.4th 1215 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 169 times
    Holding judgment of paternity void in the absence of personal jurisdiction over father

  8. Brown v. Yana

    37 Cal.4th 947 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 174 times
    Listing "the child's age" as relevant factor in custody-related best interest analysis

  9. A.B. v. A.C.

    45 Cal.4th 1110 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 145 times
    Holding that due process is satisfied when detriment to the child is established at an earlier stage in the proceedings—prior to the section 366.26 termination hearing—"and parental rights terminated later based on the child's best interest"

  10. In re Y.M.

    207 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 116 times
    Adopting the clear and convincing standard to justify termination of court-ordered family reunification services to comply with Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 388(c)

  11. Section 1101 - Definitions

    8 U.S.C. § 1101   Cited 16,314 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding notice and comment rulemaking is required for the agency's interim rule recognizing fear of coercive family practices as basis for refugee status

  12. Section 204.11 - Special immigrant juvenile classification

    8 C.F.R. § 204.11   Cited 364 times
    Requiring SIJ applicant to submit juvenile court order containing such findings

  13. Rule 5.92 - Request for court order; responsive declaration

    Cal. R. 5.92   Cited 66 times

    (a) Application (1) In a family law proceeding under the Family Code: (A) The term "request for order" has the same meaning as the terms "motion" or "notice of motion" when they are used in the Code of Civil Procedure; (B) A Request for Order (form FL-300) must be used to ask for court orders, unless another Judicial Council form has been adopted or approved for the specific request; and (C) A Responsive Declaration to Request for Order (form FL-320) must be used to respond to the orders sought in

  14. Rule 5.24 - Joinder of persons claiming interest

    Cal. R. 5.24   Cited 45 times

    A person who claims or controls an interest in any matter subject to disposition in the proceeding may be joined as a party to the family law case only as provided in this chapter. (a) Applicable rules (1) All provisions of law relating to joinder of parties in civil actions generally apply to the joinder of a person as a party to a family law case, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (2) The law applicable to civil actions generally governs all pleadings, motions, and other matters pertaining

  15. Rule 5.7 - Use of forms

    Cal. R. 5.7   Cited 5 times

    (a) Status of family law and domestic violence forms All forms adopted or approved by the Judicial Council for use in any proceeding under the Family Code, including any form in the FL, ADOPT, DV, and EJ series, are adopted as rules of court under the authority of Family Code section 211; article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution; and other applicable law. (b) Forms in nonfamily law proceedings The forms specified by this division may be used, at the option of the party, in any proceeding