PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Summary Judgment & Summary Adjudication
......Burdens of Production
.........Evidentiary Issues
7 Cards On This Topic:

Os who removed Cs without a warrant, at the direction of DHS, were entitled to qualified immunity as they reasonably believed they were legally authorized to act in reliance on DHS's determination.

D's motion for summary judgment properly granted where P's opposition to motion relied on excluded portions of expert declaration to raise a triable issue of fact.

Contradictions between W's testimony and his/her prior statements, under oath or not, affect only his/her credibility–it is exclusively the jury's function to determine which, if any, of W's assertions are credible.

1000s of pages of irrelevant materials should not have been analyzed under sealing rules as irrelevant materials have no bearing on court’s adjudicatory function and were out of the ambit of public’s right of access to court records.

P’s expert's declaration re custom and usage in the entertainment industry should have been admitted where sufficient foundation laid re expert’s qualifications and experience; SJ for D reversed.

In wrongful death action, although H carried initial BOP on SJ, trial court erred in not admitting W's transcript of a phone call as H's party admissions, which would create a triable issue of fact.

Allegedly abused daughter's suicide note not admissible as dying declaration where mother offered no authority to show that factual allegations made in a suicide note are admissible as dying declarations.