Rifkind v. superior court 1994 22 ca 4th 1255

Author: mgnr

August undefined, 2024

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 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 …

Using deposition testimony to support your motion to compel

WebMar 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 ... 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 … pale yellow hot peppers

Deposition hell and what to do about it - Plaintiff Magazine

WebColonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015; Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259.) The Rifkind court found that it is improper to ask a party to state its legal contentions during deposition (and such questions that essentially ask a deponent to apply facts to law on the spot should instead be asked in ... 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 … 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 pale yellow iron on vinyl

Rifkind v. Superior Court, No. B075946 - California - Case Law

WebIn 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 … 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 … pale yellow house with black doorWeb10-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 ... pale yellow king bedspread

"WebFN 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 … " - Rifkind v. superior court 1994 22 ca 4th 1255

Rifkind v. superior court 1994 22 ca 4th 1255

VICTAULIC COMPANY v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE …

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.”

Did you know?

WebDec 19, 2016 · Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1257 (emphasis added). And the law is well settled in California that the scope of discovery is very broad. Any doubts will be applied liberally in favor of discovery. These rules are applied liberally in … 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.

WebFeb 22, 1994 · 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 … WebYes, it is the same thing if you seek documents. endstream Did I think this was ok or not?

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 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 … 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 …

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 ...

WebThe fact that Mr. Rifkind filed an unverified answer to Mr. Good's lawsuit is no justification for requiring him to answer legal contention questions at his deposition. He retained an … (Singer v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 2d 318, 323-325 [5 Cal. Rptr. 697, 353 P.2d 305]; … pale yellow hyacinthWeblate 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 … pale-yellowishWeb(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 ... summit high school calendar 2023WebJul 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 … summit high school cheerWebMar 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.’ summit high school fontana reviewsWebSuperior 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 … summit high school flagstaff azWebCourt (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 … pale yellow king comforter