Ross v. Super. Ct.
| Docket Number | D079278 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 2022 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
2 cases
-
Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers
...court's decision to deny mandatory intervention, though not for the reason the trial court gave. (See Ross v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 667, 681 [" 'It is well settled that an appellate court reviews the ruling of the trial court, not its rationale' "].) Here, the court was right......
-
Friends of Oceano Dunes v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n
... ... 2d Civil No. B320491 California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division April 20, 2023 ... ... Superior Court County Nos. 21CV-0214, 21CV-0219, 21CV-0246, ... ( Ross v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 667, ... ...
3 books & journal articles
-
Table of cases
...& Publishing Co. (2002) 100 Cal. App. 4th 736, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 787, §18:20 Ross v. Superior Court of Riverside County (2022) 77 Cal. App. 5th 667, 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d 663, §§ 10:70, 10:80 Ross, People v. (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 1033, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438, §22:130 Rothstein v. Superior Cour......
-
Privileges and public policy exclusions
...the alleged attempt is relevant, potentially admissible, and, thus, discoverable. Ross v. Superior Court of Riverside County (2022) 77 Cal. App. 5th 667, 684, 292 Cal. Rptr. 3d 663. Invoking Privilege. The privilege may be claimed by any of the following [Evid. Code §954]: • The holder of t......
-
California Employment Law Notes
...Court found a material fact as to whether defendants' stated reasons for termination were pretextual. See also Ross v. Superior Court, 77 Cal. App. 5th 667 (2022) (whistleblower is entitled to obtain testimony showing that the employer attempted to suppress or alter a witness's testimony); ......