Marriage of Shayan. Family Law Judgments are not subject to 10 year renewal rules.

Marriage of Saraye. Factors set forth in Family Code §3653 may be applied in determining whether to order reimbursement of overpayments of child support.

E.G. v. M.L. Analysis of what qualifies as clear and convincing evidence supporting the issuance of a Civil Harassment Retraining Order.

In re H.B. Even if only removing a child from only one parent, must still meet the burden under §361(c)(1).

In re G.R. There are different rights in dependency for alleged, biological, and presumed fathers.

Reich v. Reich. Omitted spouses are not entitled to share in IRA proceeds that named other trusts as the beneficiaries b/c the proceeds never passed through the decedent’s estate.

P. v. SanMiguel. Spontaneous Statement Exception.

Richard v. Union Pacific Railroad. Qualification as an expert is relative to the subject, not to the other experts; Formal education is not a prerequisite for expert qualification.

People v. Corbi. Opinion about how an individual thought / felt / acted in a situation may overcome a speculation objection, but it is not the subject of an expert opinion. An expert is in no better position than the trier of fact to apply the information available to reach an opinion on state of mind.

Watts v. Pneumo Abex, LLC. Admissions are admittable, even if the declaration was incompetent or unqualified.

Katayam v. Continental Investment Group. When considering whether a court “shall” deem Request for Admissions admitted, the assertion of waived objections does not necessarily prevent substantial compliance with Section 2033.220”, but should be a factor in the assessment of substantial compliance.

In re M.T. Applications to Seal Records. While some requests to change the record of gender may be sealed, not all applications qualify to be sealed.

Vaghashia v. Vaghashia. To enforce or vacate? You cannot argue both without jeopardizing the use of equitable estoppel.

Alafi et al v. Cohen. Error to not issue one upon request; deprives party’s of ability to challenge, and reviewing court’s ability to review.

A.D. Improvements, Inc. v. Department of Transportation. Courts may consider the legislative history to resolve any ambiguities. This can be done by taking judicial notice of documents comprising the legislative history materials related to the enactment of a code section. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459).

North American Title Co. v. Superior Court. Disqualification of Judges. Self Disqualification under 170.3(b) and party-initiated disqualification under 170.3(c); waiver and forfeiture.