Legal Opinion
Frio v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 26, 1988No. B033638PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KLEIN, P. J.
Petitioners Richard Frio and Carousel Records (Frio) seek writ review of a pretrial order precluding Frio’s testimony about the contents of separate telephone conversations between Frio and real parties in interest, Carl Maduri (Maduri), Mike Belkin (Belkin), principals of Belkin Maduri Organization, Inc. (BMO), Donald Ierace, professionally known as Donnie Iris (Iris) (collectively, real parties) and others.
The trial court based its order on Frio’s admission he had prepared notes of some telephone conversations from tape recordings made by his telephone answering machine…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- John Faulkner v. Adt Security Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- In Re Marriage of Falcone & FykeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Marc Feldman v. Allstate Insurance Company Vicki WeedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1998
- Flanagan v. FlanaganCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.