Legal Opinion

Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp.

California Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 2004No. S115654PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

Under limited statutory circumstances, written out-of-court statements, though hearsay, may serve as competent evidence of the facts set forth therein, and may be used in lieu of other competent evidence, such as live testimony given under oath in court. “[Declarations,” for instance, are allowed to support and oppose motions for summary judgment. (Code Civ, Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1) & (2).) Critical here is section 2015.5, which defines a “declaration” as a writing that is signed, dated, and certified as true under penalty of perjury. In addition, section 2015.5 specifies…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. California v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Delaney v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  5. City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
  2. Mt. Hawley Insurance v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.California Supreme Court · 2019
  4. TRACKMAN v. KenneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015

34 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