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

Author: mugz

August undefined, 2024

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 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 …

MSJ denied - Advocate Magazine

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 … 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 … top gear car train

Riffing on Rifkind: Handling The Improper "Instruction Not To …

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 ... 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 … WebYes, it is the same thing if you seek documents. endstream Did I think this was ok or not? top gear car wash cafe

Rifkind v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 - Casetext

Four Discovery Issues in Medical Negligence Cases - CMG Law

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 … WebCourt (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 … top gear car trebuchetWebAt 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 ... top gear cars of youth

"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 22 cal.app.4th 1255

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

Rifkind v. Superior Court (Good) (1994) - Justia Law

WebRifkind 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 … 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 …

Did you know?

WebI often hear advice on making Rifkind 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. Incorporating the CACIs ... WebAn 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. …

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... 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, …

WebFeb 23, 1994 · Citing Case. 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1994) 27 Cal. Rptr.2d 822. ROBERT GORE RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; … WebDec 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 …

WebSuperior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, Mr. Freeman successfully argued that contention-style deposition questions are improper because it is the lawyer’s (not the client’s) role to determine which facts support the client’s contentions, even where, as in Rifkind, the client happens to be an attorney.

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 top gear car wash trenthamWebSuperior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, Mr. Freeman successfully argued that contention-style deposition questions are improper because it is the lawyer’s (not the … top gear car wash fireWebJan 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). top gear cast 2010WebHe 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 … top gear car wash seven hillsWebJan 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). top gear castellano onlineWebPisaro (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 ... top gear castellanoWebRifkind 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. top gear castlederg