2024 Rifkind versus superior court

Rifkind versus superior court

Author: sxhn

August undefined, 2024

WebThe Path to Power читать онлайн. In her international bestseller, The Downing Street Years, Margaret Thatcher provided an acclaimed account of her years as Prime Minister. This second volume reflects WebCourt of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California. Robert Gore RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent, Gogi Grant RIFKIND, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 62273. Decided: September 30, 1981 Belcher, Henzie, Biegenzahn, Chertok & Walker and William I. Chertok, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

Bethel Superior Court Judge dismisses challenge to ADFG …

WebMay 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 Rifkind objections to justify an instruction that the deponent not answer a question. WebOct 9, 2024 · (Rifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 1262-64 (1994); Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 733, 748-49 (a party’s responses to deposition questions on topics for which the party would not be expected to have personal, percipient knowledge cannot be used to shift the burden on an absence of evidence theory in a summary ... trainer tamers

Vague and Ambiguous, Compound and Confusing ... - Evidence at …

WebLike the superior court division, district courts hold trials and empanel juries to determine the facts of specific cases. District courts handle serious, but lower level crimes, and civil cases between $10,000 - $25,000. The state is divided into district court districts where the court usually sits in the county seat of each county. Websions: the Superior Court Division and District Court Divi-sion. Superior Courts have jurisdiction over civil cases in-volving more than $25,000. District Courts have jurisdiction over civil cases involving less than $25,000 and all family law matters such as divorce, custody and child support cas-es. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-243, et seq. Small ... WebMar 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 seasons east meadow

Rifkind v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App.3d 1045 Casetext …

WebSecond Dist., Div. Four. Feb 23, 1994.] ROBERT GORE RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NED GOOD, Real Party in Interest. [Opinion certified for partial publication. fn. * ] (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC048093, Edward M. Ross, Judge.) WebMar 12, 2024 · Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 318 (1960); Rifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1960). Tellingly, the Legislature could have used the exact same language with respect to document demands under section 2031.010, et seq. But, in drafting section 2031, the Legislature chose not to include any reference to the use of “contention” style ... trainertabyWebRifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (1994): Argued successfully, and established precedent of widespread use that “contention” deposition questions are improper. the seasons explained for kids

"WebFeb 22, 1994 · Rifkind v. Superior Court 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1994) Cited 9 times California Court of Appeal February 22, 1994 EPSTEIN, Acting P.J.: The petitioner in this case, an attorney, was sued by another attorney for improperly withdrawing money held in a joint account pending resolution of a fee dispute between them. " - Rifkind versus superior court

Rifkind versus superior court

Rifkind v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App.3d 1045 Casetext Search + …

Web2 days ago · It is difficult to prove libel in the American legal system, thanks in large part to New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 Supreme Court decision that is considered as critical to the First ... WebRifkind v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 123 Cal.App.3d 1045, 177 Cal.Rptr. 82 (1981); see Wells v. Wells, 108 Misc.2d 501, 437 N.Y.S.2d 622 (1981); Borg v. Borg, 32 Ill.App.3d 1075, 337 N.E.2d 391 (1...... Kaye v. Kaye United States New York Supreme Court Appellate Division July 16, 1984 ... (Quick v.

Did you know?

WebSuperior Court (Rifkind) (1981) Annotate this Case. [Civ. No. 62273. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four. September 30, 1981.] ROBERT GORE RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; GOGI GRANT RIFKIND, Real Party in Interest. WebJan 29, 2015 · The court then drew a parallel to Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, a well-known opinion which condemned the use of “legal contention questions” at deposition (i.e. asking a deponent to state all facts or identify all documents which support an affirmative defense).

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 … WebSep 28, 1994 · Rifkind finds the asserted constitutional right in the Supreme Court's recent expressions that due process forbids the states from imposing punitive damages without judicial review of the trier of fact's assessment of them. That position was adumbrated in …

WebAnd the Rule of Rifkind Probably the single most important Cali fornia deposition case is the Second District's decision in Rifkind v. Superior Court (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 WebFeb 23, 1994 · Mr. Rifkind also refused to answer a question that he believed would lead to a breach of attorney-client confidences between himself and the woman he and Mr. Good had represented.

WebThe Rifkind laundry list. This is a good place to interpose a Rifkind objection also. Rifkind v. Sup. Ct. (Good) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259, stands for the proposition that it is improper to ask your client for legal contentions and the evidence supporting legal theories such as causation, damages, apportionment of fault. That is what ...

WebRifkind v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 3d 1045 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) California Court of Appeal Filed: September 30th, 1981 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 123 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 177 Cal. Rptr. 82 Docket Number: 62273 Author: Gordon L. Files 123 Cal.App.3d 1045 (1981) 177 Cal. Rptr. 82 ROBERT GORE RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. trainer team flare gruntWebSep 30, 1981 · ROBERT GORE RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; GOGI GRANT RIFKIND, Real Party in Interest. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four. September 30, 1981. trainerteam fc bayernWebAn objection that every plaintiff lawyer should use is based upon Rifkind v. Sup. Ct. (Good) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255. Rifkind is a case you need to read if you defend depositions. Basically, the Rifkind objection applies to questions asking a deponent to explain his or her contentions in the case. trainerteam bayern münchenWebSuperior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (1994). While Rifkind does hold that that legal contention questions are improper at deposition, the rule is reasonably narrow. Rifkind involved a dispute between two lawyers who worked as co-counsel on an airplane crash case. Id. at 1257. trainerteam hollandWebSep 23, 2024 · N.C. Court of Appeals Seat 5: Lora Christine Cubbage (Democrat) vs. Fred Gore (Republican) Cubbage is currently the Superior Court Judge for Guiliford County. She’s also been an assistant district attorney, assistant attorney general, and as a district court judge. Cubbage helped establish the drug and mental health courts. trainerteam dfbWebSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3748-21 GOLD TREE SPA, INC., GOLD GARDEN OF WALL TOWNSHIP INC., and OK SIM BAIK, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. PD NAIL CORP., CD NAIL CORP., HEE JUNG KIM and SOOK HEE KIM, Defendants-Appellants, and PD NAIL CORP., CD NAIL CORP., HEE JUNG KIM and SOOK … trainer tennisclub arnolduspark in hoofddorpWebRifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (1994): We argued successfully to establish a precedent of widespread importance in civil discovery that contention deposition questions are improper. News & Insights . Go to the post. Bird Marella Receives Nationwide Recognition in Multiple Practice Areas in 2024 “Best Law Firms” by U.S ... the seasons en espanol