Rifkind v. superior court 1994 22 ca 4th 1255

Author: hrcu

August undefined, 2024

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. … 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 …

Rifkind v. Superior Court California Court of Appeal 02-23-1994 ...

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.’ 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 … spheres to you

POURIA KEYVANI VS JS GLASS & MIRROR, INC Court Records

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 … 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 … 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 ... sphere stock

Rifkind v. Superior Court California Court of Appeal 02-23-1994 ...

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.” WebFeb 26, 2024 · 4. Benson: A condominium construction defect lawsuit in Oregon, alleging black specks in the water due to deteriorating rubber on Victaulic valves. This claim … spheres tourWebRifkind 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 … spheres trailer

"Web(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 ... " - Rifkind v. superior court 1994 22 ca 4th 1255

Rifkind v. superior court 1994 22 ca 4th 1255

What does the objection “argumentative” mean? - Legal Answers

WebSuperior 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 … 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?

http://www.advancedturbinesupport.com/4npwb13/pqe37g4s/article.php?tag=objection-to-demand-for-inspection-of-premises-california 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 ...

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 … Web10-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 ...

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 … 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]; …

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.

WebRifkind 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. sphere stuff dayWebFeb 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 … sphere streamingWebROBERT GORE RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NED GOOD, Real Party in Interest. No. B075946. COURT OF APPEAL OF … sphere streaming itaWebRichfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) Citations: 22 Cal. App. 4th 222, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 161 - No case name available - Citation: 22 Cal. App. 4th 228 Troost Monument Co. v. City of Santa Monica Citation: 22 Cal. App. 4th 246 sphere stokes theoremWebMay 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, … sphere styrofoamWebMar 23, 2024 · Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1994))“Do you contend”Identify (state) facts, witnesses, documents that support allegations Harassment – asked and … sphere studiosWebMay 31, 2024 · (Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255.) With these goals and limitations in mind, there are several things to consider in deciding when and whose … sphere summit 2022