Bijan v. Isong. Review of (a) methods and considerations for assigning liabilities in a property division [Cal. Fam. §§2620 - 2625], liability after division of property [Cal. Fam. §916], Uniform Voidable Transfer Act as it applies to MSAs, Judgments, and Default Judgments.

Malinowski v. Martin. A DVRO / TRO is not a carte blanch right to record; Penal Code §633.5 and 633.6 require reasonable belief and good faith.

Greisman v. FCA. 664.6 Enforceable w/Attorneys Only. Attorneys can enter enforceable 664.6 agreements orally, on the record, that are binding on their clients, even if the litigant himself does not affirm the agreement.

People v. Tidd. Proponents of expert opinions must establish the opinions are a matter of logic, studies, and other information and not guesswork or conjecture.

LA v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP. 2023.010 and 2023.030 are an independent source of sanctions authority.

TM v. Superior Court. Patient-litigant exception: No privilege as to communication relevant to an issue concerning the mental or emotional condition of the patient if such issue has been tendered by the patient. §1016.

Syre v. Douglas. Representation is not barred with prospective clients unless ‘the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter.’”

People v. Ramirez. Words are to lawyers, as scalpels are to surgeons. They are tools to be used with precision.

In RE Dezi C. A child welfare agency’s failure to make the statutorily required initial inquiry under California’s heightened ICWA requirements requires conditional reversal with directions to the agency to conduct an adequate inquire, supported by record documentation.  When the required initial inquiry was inadequate, Absent exceptional circumstances, an appellate court cannot consider postjudgment evidence to conclude the error was harmless. The evidence needs to be presented to the trial court, not for the first time on appeal. The juvenile court is the appropriate court to determine if the inquiry by the department was proper and adequate.

In re S.R. It was error for a juvenile to assume jurisdiction over a minor just because the child’s sibling was sexually abused and mother failed to protect the sibling from the sexual abuse.

In re Zoe H. et al. By statute, a jurisdictional finding “pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 300” (§ 300(e))—that is, a finding of severe physical abuse of a child less than five years old—constitutes prima facie evidence that the child cannot safely remain in the home. (§ 361(c)(1).) Jurisdictional findings under the other subdivisions of section 300 do not constitute prima facie evidence that the child cannot safely remain in the home.

In re N.J. Relative placement preference.