Rifkind v. superior court 22 cal.app.4th 1255

Author: ewtr

August undefined, 2024

http://www.advancedturbinesupport.com/4npwb13/pqe37g4s/article.php?tag=objection-to-demand-for-inspection-of-premises-california WebYes, it is the same thing if you seek documents. endstream Did I think this was ok or not?

POURIA KEYVANI VS JS GLASS & MIRROR, INC Court Records

WebAny version of that type of examination, asking a witness to explain the basis of his legal contentions, is conduct condemned in Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th … WebPisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, n.12 [deposition testimony by a plaintiff on a topic in which the plaintiff is not expected to have percipient knowledge is not the equivalent of a factually devoid interrogatory response for purposes of summary judgment]; Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260 [deposition testimony is not ... 기기설정 tivo

Special interrogatories for a California divorce case

WebSuperior 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. You can object, but … WebFeb 23, 1994 · 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 Robert Gore RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent, Ned GOOD, Real Party in … 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 tivo 10k

RIFKIND v. SUPERIOR COURT 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 - Casemine

WebApr 11, 2024 · This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Case Details Parties Documents Dockets Case Details Case Number: *******2459 Filing Date: 04/11/2024 Case Status: … WebFeb 26, 2024 · Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, holding that it was improper to ask at deposition “ ‘legal contention questions,’ ” which questions were … tivo 초기화In 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 state all facts, list all witnesses and identify all documents that support or … See more Because of the limited nature of the issues before us, it is not necessary to set out a detailed account of the underlying litigation, or the litigation out of which it, in … See more We emphasize at the outset what we are not discussing: questions at a deposition asking the person deposed about the basis for, or information about, a factual … See more Let an order issue, mandating the respondent court to vacate and set aside its order of June 8, 1993, directing petitioner to answer further questions at deposition … See more tivo 앱 삭제

"WebThe superior court's orders embrace a great deal of material which Husband has produced or has agreed to produce. The financial reports of the law corporation through 1979 were produced prior to the hearing, and the 1980 reports were promised when ready. " - Rifkind v. superior court 22 cal.app.4th 1255

Rifkind v. superior court 22 cal.app.4th 1255

Four Discovery Issues in Medical Negligence Cases - CMG Law

WebSuperior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259.) was seeking discovery of a 28-page report. 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 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 …

Did you know?

WebMay 27, 2024 · Rifkind, an attorney, was a longtime friend of a woman whose husband was killed in a plane crash. Rifkind, 22 Cal. App. 4th at 1257. Rifkind undertook to represent … WebJan 26, 2012 · Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1261, and cases cited.) First established as a judicial rule, the proposition has been codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010, subdivision (b).

WebDuring the course of the deposition, Mr. Rifkind was asked, and was instructed not to [22 Cal. App. 4th 1258] answer, three categories of questions that later became the subject of …

WebSuperior 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 … 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, …

WebMar 22, 2024 · Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1255, the Court reasoned that RFA denials are akin to improper contention questions posed at a deposition because they require a party “to make a...

WebMar 23, 2024 · Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1994))“Do you contend”Identify (state) facts, witnesses, documents that support allegations Harassment – asked and … tivo 1999WebHe cites authorities that have applied that kind of inference in statutory construction, including one that is fairly close to the issue before us: Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior … tivo 2WebAn 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. … tivo168WebAt the deposition, the questioning attorney then asks you to state all facts that support this defense. Such a question is not an appropriate question of a deponent (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 ... tivo 1WebDec 1, 2000 · In *Rifkind v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County*, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 (1994) the court held that contention questions are not proper in a deposition even though they are permissible by written interrogatories. The reasoning is that contention questions involve mixed questions of law and fact, and lay people should not … tivo 2004WebFeb 29, 1996 · ( Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 552-553 .) Counsel for the moving defendant would obviously be wise to assist the trial court in this endeavor by making abundantly clear, early in the moving papers, the … tivo 13WebColonial 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 ... tivo 2008