What responsibility does an attorney have for witness perjury?

Useful Rulings on Witness Perjury

Recent Rulings on Witness Perjury

HOOVER, ET AL. V. MANOR CARE OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA, LLC, ET AL.

(See Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 3.3 [Candor Toward the Tribunal].) There is no meeting of the minds as to all material terms. The court cannot enforce part of a settlement. While the court may, under certain circumstances, reject a settlement agreement as a whole, it may not enforce only part of it pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and without the parties' mutual consent. (Leeman v.

  • Hearing

DEGONZALEZ V. WHYTE

(See Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 3.3 [Candor Toward the Tribunal].) Notwithstanding the gaps in Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration and Plaintiff’s Opposition, the record does not support the imposition of the “severest” sanctions. (See Hartbrodt v.

  • Hearing

CLEVE PELL VS THE MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

According to Plaintiff, this conduct could constitute forgery under California Penal Code section 470, subordination of perjury under California Penal Code section 127, and the federal crime of wire fraud under Title 18 of the United States Code section 1343. (Id. at p. 8:2-11.) Second, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ counsel’s conduct of filing the ex parte application seeking a continuance and not disclosing that Defendants’ counsel signed Dr.

  • Hearing

CLEVE PELL VS THE MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

According to Plaintiff, this conduct could constitute forgery under California Penal Code section 470, subordination of perjury under California Penal Code section 127, and the federal crime of wire fraud under Title 18 of the United States Code section 1343. (Id. at p. 8:2-11.) Second, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ counsel’s conduct of filing the ex parte application seeking a continuance and not disclosing that Defendants’ counsel signed Dr.

  • Hearing

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS GUERRA

See Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 3.3; see also Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d). The Court specifically informed plaintiff's counsel that plaintiff's Notice of Ruling as to the 11/2/18 hearing was inaccurate. ROA # 27. The Court further made clear that to the extent plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleading relied entirely on the ruling on the requests for admission, it would not be granted. Id.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ASSET CAPITAL RECOVERY GROUP LLC VS GUERRA

See Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 3.3; see also Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(d). The Court specifically informed plaintiff's counsel that plaintiff's Notice of Ruling as to the 11/2/18 hearing was inaccurate. ROA # 27. The Court further made clear that to the extent plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleading relied entirely on the ruling on the requests for admission, it would not be granted. Id.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

WOMACK VS. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM

The sixth cause of action is for violation of Penal Code §127 (subornation of perjury). "Subornation of perjury, being a crime and not a tort, is subject to criminal prosecution brought in the interest of the state and not to redress a private wrong." Legg v. Ford (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 534, 543. This cause of action fails to allege facts to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff has failed to offer any additional facts that would support a claim against these defendants.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WOMACK VS. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM

The sixth cause of action is for violation of Penal Code §127 (subornation of perjury). "Subornation of perjury, being a crime and not a tort, is subject to criminal prosecution brought in the interest of the state and not to redress a private wrong." Legg v. Ford (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 534, 543. This cause of action fails to allege facts to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff has failed to offer any additional facts that would support a claim against these defendants.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WOMACK VS. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM

The sixth cause of action is for violation of Penal Code §127 (subornation of perjury). "Subornation of perjury, being a crime and not a tort, is subject to criminal prosecution brought in the interest of the state and not to redress a private wrong." Legg v. Ford (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 534, 543. This cause of action fails to allege facts to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiff has failed to offer any additional facts that would support a claim against these defendants.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.