§

Cal. Evid. Code § 664

Section 664 - Performance of official duty
Section 664 - Performance of official duty

3 Citing briefs

  1. Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland

    MOTION for Summary Judgment City of Oakland's Notice of motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment, and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 5, 2017

    See, e.g., Cal. Gov’t Code § 65866. Case 3:16-cv-07014-VC Document 145 Filed 12/05/17 Page 23 of 50 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OAKLAND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OAK #4836-0378-5048 v3 - 12 - CITY’S MSJ AND OPP’N TO OBOT’S MSJ CASE NO. 16-CV-7014-VC (1993); Cal. Evid. Code § 664. A court does not “weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicts in the evidence or in the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it.”

  2. MENDIOLA v. CPS SECURITY SOLUTIONS

    Respondents’ Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed January 13, 2014

    ” There is, of course, a presumption that an official duty has been regularly performed. (Evidence Code § 664.) Absent evidence to the contrary, we must assumethat the IWCwasprovided with copies of these DLSE enforcementletters.

  3. PEOPLE v. HAJEK & VO

    Appellant, Loi Tan Vo, Reply Brief

    Filed February 27, 2012

    Thus, contrary to respondent’s suggestion,thetrial court did not perform its independent duty to ensure fair trial, on reliable evidence. The presumption urged by respondent — that the trial court understood and fulfilled its duties (RB 121, citing People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 567, Evid. Code § 664, and Denham v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564) — has been rebutted by the record in this case. The burdenis on the state to demonstrate harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt (Chapmanv.