Rifkind v. superior court 1994 22 ca 4th 1255

Author: cfeb

August undefined, 2024

WebROBERT GORE RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NED GOOD, Real Party in Interest. No. B075946. COURT OF APPEAL OF … WebApr 6, 2024 · Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which. Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred. MICHAEL G. v. SUPERIOR COURT. S271809. Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. Under California’s child dependency law, when a child is. removed from a parent’s custody, the juvenile court …

Everything the Plaintiff’s Lawyer Needs to Know About …

WebJul 28, 2024 · In Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, the deponent was instructed not to answer various “contention” questions. In response, the deposing party brought a motion to compel, which the court … WebFeb 23, 1994 · Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 13 Respondent's proposed undisputed fact number 10 stated at the time appellant leased the premises to respondent, re...... Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, Case No. 16-cv-00236-WHO United States United States District Courts. 9th … the last hangover izle

THERE’S THIS CASE THAT SAYS . . . (Depositions) - Discovery …

WebFeb 5, 2024 · In support I cited Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 392; West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 416-417, 421; Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260. In fact, the defendant defiantly now added the objection “argumentative.” WebRifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 CA 4th 1255, 1259. Documents reviewed to prepare for deposition are discoverable. International Insurance Co. v. Montrose Chemical Corp. of California (1991) 231 CA3d 1367, 1372-73. However, privileged documents do not lose their privileged status (Sullivan v. Superior Court http://www.metnews.com/articles/2015/gons011415.htm the last hangman

What does the objection “argumentative” mean? - Legal Answers

Strategic Considerations in Taking a Deposition - Practitioner - CEB

WebMay 9, 2024 · The 10 causes of action are: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; 4) violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900 (discrimination, harassment and retaliation); two violations of FEHA (Gov. Code, § 12940, … Web`specifically held that such an interrogatory must be answered. (Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) `22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1255-57 [deposition questions asking opponent “to state all facts, list all `witnesses and identify all documents that support the affirmative defenses he had asserted in his the last hannah jamesonWebMay 27, 2024 · One case California litigators must have in their arsenal is Rifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th 1257 (1994). Counsel defending depositions will often lodge … the last hangman in england

"WebJun 4, 2024 · The Court declines to impose sanctions as the motion was granted in part and denied in part. The issue here is the application of Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255. " [T]he problem with legal contention questions has nothing to do with discoverability of the information sought. " - Rifkind v. superior court 1994 22 ca 4th 1255

Rifkind v. superior court 1994 22 ca 4th 1255

Hermanson v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., No. B305661 - Casetext

WebSuperior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, in which the court condemned the practice of asking, at deposition, “legal contention questions,” such as by directing the witness to state “all facts that support the affirmative defense”; “the identity of each witness who has knowledge of any facts supporting the affirmative defense”; or the identity … Web10-days plus 2 court days for fax, electronic, express, or overnight (with consent); ... (Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1263) and your attorney can object and instruct you not to answer. In case your attorney does not object and you do have to answer, then say, “I am sorry, but I do not know the answer to that question ...

Did you know?

WebYes, it is the same thing if you seek documents. endstream Did I think this was ok or not? WebFeb 23, 1994 · Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 13 Respondent's proposed undisputed fact number 10 stated at the time appellant leased the …

WebJul 6, 2024 · Case Summary On 07/06/2024 BRANDON HAWKINS filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against VICTOR LAUGHLIN,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARK A. YOUNG and LAWRENCE CHO. The case status … Weblate such answers. (Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822.) In that case, the court found that such questions were “unfair” at a deposition, 9 …

Web(See Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1260 [27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 822].) FN 13. Respondent's proposed undisputed fact No. 10 stated at the time appellant leased the premises to respondent, respondent "was not aware of any hazard or unsafe condition regarding the handrail." However, in the portion of the respondent's supporting ...

WebRifkind v. Superior Court. 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 16 times 2 Legal Analyses. In Rifkind, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, the Court of Appeal held it was improper for a party to ask "legal contention questions" at a deposition, which the court defined as "deposition questions that ask a party deponent to ...

WebRifkind plaintiff to own their truth. It will legal contention objections because a question incorporates the term “discrimination” or “retaliation.” (Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255.) You can object, but recognize the question presents the plaintiff with an opportunity to hit one out of the park. thyme stidworthyWebMar 22, 2024 · Li (2015) 232 Cal. App. 4th 1406 and Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255, the Court reasoned that RFA denials are akin to improper contention questions posed at a deposition ... the last happy new year club fridayWebROBERT GORE RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NED GOOD, Real Party in Interest. No. B075946. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255; 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 822; 1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 151; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1359; 93 Daily Journal … thyme studioWebFN 4. Rifkind relies almost exclusively on applications of the federal due process clause, and he advances no reason why disposition of his federally based claim should not control the … thymes tonerWebRichfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) Citations: 22 Cal. App. 4th 222, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 161 - No case name available - Citation: 22 Cal. App. 4th 228 Troost Monument Co. v. City of Santa Monica Citation: 22 Cal. App. 4th 246 the last happy new year ep.1WebCourt (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822]. Rifkind is an absolute must-know case for any litigator who de fends depositions, that is, all of us. It is also, sometimes, a … thyme stripperWebMar 1, 2024 · The court first discussed analogous cases, including Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, holding that it was improper to ask at deposition “ ‘legal contention questions,’ ” which questions were condemned as requiring the party “ ‘to make a “law-to-fact” application that is beyond the competence of most lay persons.’ the last happy new year ep 6