For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
Brancati v. Cachuma Village, LLC
Trial court erred in excluding medical doctor's factually-based expert testimony to testify on impact of mold in plaintiff's residence to her health. 		Evidence 2DCA/6 Oct. 18, 2023
People v. Bingham
Despite trial court improperly deeming victim's inconsistent statements inadmissible for impeachment purposes, reversal was not required because it was unlikely the statements would lead to a more favorable outcome. 		Evidence 1DCA/5 Sep. 28, 2023
Jensen v. EXC Inc.
District court erroneously allowed the introduction of hearsay opinions of a non-testifying putative expert. 		Evidence 9th Sep. 25, 2023
People v. Jenkins
Substantial evidence did not support court's order involuntarily recommitting mentally disordered defendant to state hospital. 		Evidence 4DCA/1 Sep. 5, 2023
People v. Castaneda-Prado
Victim's admission that she accused defendant to help her mother obtain an immigration visa was admissible to attack her credibility. 		Evidence 1DCA/4 Sep. 1, 2023
Tekoh v. County of Los Angeles
Excluding expert testimony on coerced confessions was error where false confessions were beyond the common knowledge of the average layperson, and it would have helped jurors better evaluate credibility. 		Evidence 9th Aug. 7, 2023
Doe v. Superior Court (Mountain View School District)
Though evidence of another molestation incident involving plaintiff sexual abuse victim may be admissible, it still requires a hearing to be reviewed and scrutinized for undue prejudice. 		Evidence CASC Jul. 28, 2023
People v. Portillo
Warehouse manager's testimony regarding the retail listings of stolen dumbbells was admissible non-hearsay evidence since it was circumstantial price tag testimony about the item's fair market value 		Evidence 2DCA/7 May 17, 2023
Onglyza Product Cases
In case involving whether active ingredient in type 2 diabetes medication increased risk of heart failure, summary judgment was appropriate after trial court properly excluded experts' testimony. 		Evidence 1DCA/4 Apr. 21, 2023
People v. Saucedo
Error was non-prejudicial where the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding minor driving offenses committed by defendant to prove he acted with implied malice to commit murder. 		Evidence 1DCA/5 Apr. 17, 2023
In re Jenkins
Attorney Generals have a constitutional, ethical, or procedural duty to disclose certain exculpatory evidence in response to habeas petitioner's *Brady* claim. 		Evidence CASC Mar. 28, 2023
People v. Gobert
Testimony regarding strangled girlfriend's trip to visit her sister prior to her death was impermissible propensity evidence, but the error was not prejudicial to the clear-cut murder charge. 		Evidence 4DCA/1 Mar. 23, 2023
Militello v. VFARM
Disqualifying counsel was proper where client failed to establish emails, which were allegedly impermissibly downloaded and used by counsel in a related proceeding, were not protected by the spousal communication privilege. 		Evidence 2DCA/7 Mar. 22, 2023
Modification: People v. Sedano
Prosecution's testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome was admissible because it was admitted to help the jury's objective evaluation of the victim's credibility rather than vouch for her veracity. 		Evidence 5DCA Mar. 3, 2023
People v. Sedano
Prosecution's testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome was admissible because it was admitted to help the jury's objective evaluation of the victim's credibility rather than vouch for her veracity. 		Evidence 5DCA Feb. 22, 2023
People v. Thomas
Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of defendant's other murder because the motives for both murders were similar and the gruesome evidence was not sufficiently prejudicial. 		Evidence CASC Jan. 27, 2023
LAOSD Asbestos Cases
Declaration made by Avon's corporate representative was inadmissible as hearsay made by a lay witness because it discussed events that occurred years earlier to which she had no personal knowledge. 		Evidence 2DCA/8 Jan. 25, 2023
Modification: Bader v. Johnson & Johnson
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting doctor to offer opinion that fibrous talc causes mesothelioma because the materials that plaintiff presented in support provided reasonable basis for the opinion at issue. 		Evidence 1DCA/4 Jan. 25, 2023
Bader v. Johnson & Johnson
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting doctor to offer opinion that fibrous talc causes mesothelioma because the materials that plaintiff presented in support provided reasonable basis for the opinion at issue. 		Evidence 1DCA/4 Dec. 28, 2022
People v. Kocontes
Trial court's allowance of evidence as to the reasons for divorce involving "inappropriate relationship with female" was prejudicial and irrelevant as it provided no probative value for supporting motive. 		Evidence 4DCA/3 Dec. 23, 2022
Doe v. Software One
Statements made by the company's technical director were admissible to show discriminatory or retaliatory animus against a fired employee because they were made by a high-ranking organizational agent. 		Evidence 4DCA/3 Nov. 10, 2022
U.S. v. Latu
District court properly admitted statements made by assaulted inmate to his medical providers, as the statements fell within the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. 		Evidence 9th Sep. 1, 2022
Doe v. Brightstar Residential Incorporated
The trial court erred in excluding a police report as double hearsay because the party-opponent exception and the official records exception made each level of hearsay admissible. 		Evidence 2DCA/8 Mar. 14, 2022
Berroteran v. Superior Court (Ford Motor)
Evidence Code Section 1291(a)(2) articulates a general rule in favor of introducing prior trial testimony, but against introducing prior deposition testimony. 		Evidence CASC Mar. 8, 2022
U.S. v. Tsarnaev
The First Circuit improperly vacated the Boston Marathon bomber's captital sentence based on the exclusion of mitigating evidence. 		Evidence USSC Mar. 7, 2022
People v. Davis
Expert testimony based on the STRmix method of DNA analysis was admissible because the method is accepted as reliable by the relevant scientific community. 		Evidence 3DCA Mar. 2, 2022
Elosu v. Middlefork Ranch
A trial court improperly excluded fire investigator's expert testimony when it assumed a factfinding role by concluding that the expert's report was speculative, uncertain, and unsupported by the evidence. 		Evidence 9th Feb. 24, 2022
Paige v. Safeway
Although harmless in this case, prohibiting cross-examination of expert witness regarding published standards established as generally accepted in the scientific community during the expert's deposition was error. 		Evidence 1DCA/3 Feb. 14, 2022
Spencer S. Busby, APLC v. BACTES Imaging Solutions, LLC
Rates charged for pre-litigation photocopies of clients' medical records did not violate statutory limits since charging vendor was acting as an agent of the requesting attorney. 		Evidence 4DCA/1 Jan. 21, 2022
Hemphill v. New York
Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause principles are violated when court admits unconfronted, testimonial hearsay because it deemed it necessary to correct a misleading impression. 		Evidence USSC Jan. 21, 2022
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.