What is a Condensed Narrative/Settled Statement on Appeal?

Useful Rulings on Condensed Narrative/Settled Statement on Appeal

Recent Rulings on Condensed Narrative/Settled Statement on Appeal

226-250 of 250 results

GEOFFREY WALLACE VS PAM SPRINGALL

Under Rule 3.1590, the Court issued its tentative decision on 8/20/12, announcing that it was its proposed statement of decision. She had 15 days thereafter to raise any objections to the proposed statement of decision. The court considered objections, requests, and responses filed by the parties, and on 9/11/12 filed a Statement of Decision. Judgment was filed on 9/24/12. It was not premature.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2012

MIKE MAGERS VS. BARRY PAVAN

Under California Rule of Court 3.1590, any party may serve and file objections to a proposed statement of decision. However, the purpose of an objection to a proposed statement of decision is not to reargue the merits, but to bring to the court's attention inconsistencies between the court's ruling and the document that is supposed to embody and explain that ruling, or to identify issues presented during trial that were not addressed in the tentative statement of decision. (Heaps v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2012

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MIKE MAGERS VS. BARRY PAVAN

Under California Rule of Court 3.1590, any party may serve and file objections to a proposed statement of decision. However, the purpose of an objection to a proposed statement of decision is not to reargue the merits, but to bring to the court's attention inconsistencies between the court's ruling and the document that is supposed to embody and explain that ruling, or to identify issues presented during trial that were not addressed in the tentative statement of decision. (Heaps v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2012

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

LISA HARWIN VS KANDARP OZA ET AL

Around the time of the notice of entry, defendants filed a motion for clarification stating that, because the trial court had not prepared and served a proposed statement of decision and proposed judgment, it was unclear to them whether it still intended to issue a statement of decision, as it indicated in the tentative decision, or whether it intended its tentative decision to be the statement of decision without further modification.

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

KERN, INYO & MONO COUNTIES PLUMBING PLUMING ET AL VS. CALIFORNIA APPRENTICESHIP COUNCIL

If the tentative ruling is not contested, petitioner is required to prepare a proposed statement of decision in accordance with the tentative ruling. If the tentative ruling is contested, at the conclusion of the hearing the court will state which party or parties will be requested to prepare a proposed statement of decision. =(302/HEK)

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2012

HALEY DARIA VS LEVEL STUDIOS INC ET AL

CRC 8.155(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “At any time, on motion of a party or its own motion, the reviewing court may order the record augmented to include: … (B) A certified transcript--or agreed or settled statement--of oral proceedings not designated under rule 8.130.” This is not the reviewing court. Plaintiff has filed her motion in the wrong court. Tentative Ruling: The court denies plaintiff’s motion to augment the record on appeal because she has filed it in the wrong court.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2012

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ALAN DUANE FOSTER VS. GEORGE VALVERDE

Petitioner has until the end of the day February 15 to submit any objections to the proposed statement of decision submitted by respondent.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2012

WIDE WORLD OF GOLF & TENNIS INC VS. 2381 FAIR OAKS PARTNERS LTD

statement of decision ("PSOD"), wherein it found in WWG's favor on its rescission defense, the parties hotly disputed the merits of the PSOD, and the court ultimately issued its statement of decision in favor of Fair Oaks on the question of rescission.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WILLIAM H HOLT VS. CLIVE PALETZ

As to the second point, defendant's speculation that "the court failed to consider or rule on the objections of either party to the amended proposed Statement of Decision and amended proposed Judgment" is not well founded. The court considered the objections and found all to be without merit, save in one respect. The court changed the word "if" to "when" in the judgment, at p. 9, ln. 8, before signing it. Defendant was served with a copy of the judgment bearing that correction within days of its entry.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2011

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

IN THE MATTER OF HELEN LAGOMARSINO

Here, objections wer made to the proposed statement of decision and both parties submitted proposed judgments. The purpose of the 12/29/10 minute order was to advise the parties what the Court had done with respect to the submitted documents. It was not intended to serve as a formal notice of entry of judgment. The Court deems petitioner's 2/3/11 filing to constitute the formal entry of judgment to trigger the 15-day time allowance.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2011

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

SHARP V SANKEY ET AL

I have in hand a proposed statement of the case from plaintiff and the defense. I also have in hand the proposed Statement of the Case (I usually call it an overview of the case) that was submitted by the defendants at the pretrial conference; if defendants want it to be a part of the file you should attach a caption page to it and ask the Clerk to file it.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2011

BARBARA SHARP VS JULIE SANKEY ET AL

I have in hand a proposed statement of the case from plaintiff and the defense. I intend to read to the prospective jurors the following overview of the case: “This case was filed by Barbara Sharp who is the surviving parent of decedent Justin Sharp. The case arises out of a fatal accident that occurred on the night of September 13, 2007, on Highway SR-217 as it approaches the UCSB campus.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2011

MARK C JACOBS VS AMERISPA. LLC. ETAL

The matter was more fully developed in writing for the first time in Cross-Defendant's Post-Trial Brief of Sept. 8, 2009, quoting 28 USC Sec. 1338(a), then again its Objections to Tentative Statement of Decision of Dec. 24, 2009 (one paragraph, #30 out of 41) and again in its (Proposed) Statement of Decision of Jan. 25, 2010.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2010

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TAYLOR VS COHN

I could not find any proposed statement of the case submitted by counsel. I plan to read and project to the potential juror panel the following “statement of the case:” “This lawsuit was initiated by Plaintiff Jerrie L. Taylor against Defendant and attorney Martin P. Cohn and Martin P. Cohn & Associates for legal malpractice. Jerrie L. Taylor contends that attorney Martin P.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2010

KATHY ELAINE LUHR ET AL VS MENTOR CORPORATION

Witness lists (in alphabetical order), statement of the case (if a joint statement is prepared that’s fine, if not your proposed statement of the case), jury instructions (CACI numbers only except for customized instructions and special instructions), jury verdict forms, and exhibit lists to be exchanged and submitted on April 12. (Note to counsel: All jury instructions will be presented to the jury by the court via PowerPoint.) c. Exchange of exhibits on April 23.

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2010

MICHAEL LINTHICUM ET AL VS LOCKE BUTTERFIELD, ET AL

Nature of Proceedings: Hearing Ojections to Statement of Decision Plaintiffs’ objections to the Tentative Decision (proposed statement of decision) on two limited issues Rulings: The request to make the changes to the Tentative Decision is rejected. Analysis: The Tentative decision was filed on 2/4/10 after trial. On 2/16 Linthicum filed objections to two issues and requested a hearing. The Court granted the hearing and set 3/16/10 for the matter to be argued.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2010

JEFF THEILER VS. VENTURA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

The Court has revised the proposed "statement of decision" and signed it as an order granting summary judgment. The Court has also signed the amended judgment, but as the initial submission had not been filed, it has been recharacterized as "judgment" and modified in some particulars. Both documents are signed December 22, 2009 for purposes of review calendaring, if sought. There is no statutory motion for "clarification". The SJ motion has been "granted".

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2009

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NEAL TREMBATH VS. JACOB MATHIS MD ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Use Settled Statement Set for hearing on Thursday, December 17, 2009, line 2, PLAINTIFF NEAL TREMBATH Motion To Use Settled Statement. Is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff to make motion before Commissioner Slavit. He is the hearing officer that heard the underlying matter. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2009

KEVIN WILLIAMS VS. ERIC SAFIRE ET AL

Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn For Objection To Deft'S Proposed Statement Of Decision Set for hearing on Monday, August 31, 2009, line 1, PLAINTIFF KEVIN WILLIAMS Motion for Objection To Defendant's Proposed Statement of Decision. Continued to September 8, 2009 to be heard in Department 301 before Judge Kahn. =(302/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2009

MATTER OF THE MILDRED BORDEN LIVING TRUST

The Court intends to adopt the proposed Statement of Decision submitted by Shelley and Gary Borden.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2009

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

ESTATE OF ELIZABETH BELL

The Court intends to require Garland Bell to file a proposed Statement of Decision by January 26, 2009 CRC Section 3.1590 (d).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2009

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

ESTATE OF ELIZABETH BELL

The Court intends to require Garland Bell to file a proposed Statement of Decision by January 26, 2009 CRC Section 3.1590 (d).

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2009

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

MATTER OF THE LISELOTTE M. MACFARLANE

Nature of Proceedings: SETTLED STATEMENT HEARING ON REMOVEL OF THE TRUSTEE No tentative.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2005

JOHN C KRANCI VS. RETIREMENT BOARD CCSF

Notice Of Motion For Writ Of Mandate (Ccp Section 1094.5) PETITIONER JOHN C KRANCI, Notice Of Motion For Writ Of Mandate (Ccp Section 1094.5) DENY-FAILED TO SUSTAIN BURDEN PER FUKUDA.PREVAILING PARTY TO PREPARE ORDER AND PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION.(302/REQ/PB)

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2003

CALIFORNIA PACIFIC BANK VS HUNG

PLAINTIFF TO BRING PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO HEARING. (CW)

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2002

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.