Legal Opinion
Demps v. San Francisco Housing Authority
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 9, 2007No. A112815PublishedCited by 5 opinions
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RICHMAN, J.
Paraphrasing Alexander Pope, a court “should never be ashamed to own [it] has been in the wrong; which is but saying, in other words, that [it] is wiser today than [it] was yesterday.” (Swift, Thoughts on Various Subjects in Miscellanies in Prose and Verse (1727) vol. I, p. 340.)
We write today to “own” that the procedure we approved in Biljac Associates v. First Interstate Bank (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1410 [267 Cal.Rptr. 819] (Biljac) was wrong. There, in affirming a summary judgment, we held that a trial judge need not rule on each evidentiary objection, but could preserve…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Skelly v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping CenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Zamos v. StroudCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Reid v. Google, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2010
- Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood ApartmentsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Hammond v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Hammond v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008