CHERYL S. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
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
- In Re Sade C.California Supreme Court · 1996
- In Re Jasmon O.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services v. Gregory C.California Supreme Court · 1996
- Amarawansa v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
3Cited by2 opinions
- F.H. v. Superior Court CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Jordan W. v. Superior Ct. CA5California Court of Appeal · 2021