Legal Opinion

Person v. A.V.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 12, 2017No. A148307PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DONDERO, J.—

INTRODUCTION

This case presents a question of statutory interpretation: Whether, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, 1 a ward’s compliance with his or her probation can be satisfactory for dismissal purposes, and yet ////satisfactory for record-sealing purposes. We hold it cannot. The court has the discretion under section 786 to find the ward has or has not substantially complied with his probation so as to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed it; but if the court finds the ward in substantial compliance so that he or she has satisfactorily completed…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Delaney v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  3. People v. Superior Court (Zamudio)California Supreme Court · 2000
  4. People v. Greg F.California Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Kane v. HurleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. People v. I.F. (In re I.F.), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  2. People v. N.R. (In re N.R.), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  3. People v. W.R. (In re W.R.), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
  4. Dustin Foret v. Adobe Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2026
  5. In re Brandon H.California Court of Appeal · 2024

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API