Legal Opinion

Houghtaling v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO CTY.

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 11, 1993No. E010985PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DABNEY, Acting P. J.

In this case we decide an issue which has been the subject of considerable uncertainty in the courts of this state, but which, by its nature, has until now escaped review. We hold that in a proceeding conducted under the Small Claims Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.110 et seq.1), relevant hearsay evidence is admissible subject only to those limitations contained in Evidence Code section 352 and the law of testimonial privileges. The trial court then exercises its sound discretion in determining the weight to which the evidence is entitled. Accordingly, in this case we…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Mattox v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
  3. In Re LifschutzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Sanderson v. NiemannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Prudential Insurance Co. v. Small Claims CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ellis v. Toshiba America Information Systems., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. Rosse v. DeSoto Cab Co.California Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Acuna v. Gunderson Chevrolet, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1993
  4. Dorsey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. County of Riverside v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001

3 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