Legal Opinion

CHERYL S. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 18, 1996No. B105358PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.

In Cresse S. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 947 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 56], Division Two of our Court gave notice to the bar that meaningful compliance with rule 39.IB of the California Rules of Court 1 is mandatory, and that vague claims of reversible error unsupported by specific factual averments will henceforth result in orders dismissing rule 39.IB petitions. We publish this opinion to give notice that Division One agrees wholeheartedly with Division Two and that we too will henceforth dismiss inadequate rule 39.IB petitions.

Facts

Reports of general neglect…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re Sade C.California Supreme Court · 1996
  2. In Re Jasmon O.California Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services v. Gregory C.California Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Amarawansa v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. F.H. v. Superior Court CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2021
  2. Jordan W. v. Superior Ct. CA5California Court of Appeal · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API