Legal Opinion

Jazayeri v. Mao

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 27, 2009No. B195083PublishedCited by 64 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MANEELA, J.

INTRODUCTION

In this action brought by appellants for breach of contract and fraud, the trial court excluded the bulk of appellants’ documentary evidence on grounds of lack of authentication and hearsay. Concluding that appellants had failed to meet their burden of proof, the court then entered judgment for respondents. We conclude that the blanket exclusion was error, and that much of the evidence offered was adequately authenticated and was not subject to any legitimate hearsay objection. As set forth in greater detail below, certain documents qualified for admission as…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
  2. People v. HovarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Loper v. MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. People v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  5. People v. MartinezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by64 opinions

  1. People v. LucasCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  2. People v. GoldsmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  3. City of Santa Maria v. AdamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court of Sacramento Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  5. People v. SelivanovCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016

59 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