Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

That a corporation's person most qualified attests to the documents does not mean that they are therefore automatically admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.  To invoke that exception, a witness must testify from personal knowledge as to the mode of preparation of the documents, among other things.  That the person is most qualified to respond to… Read More

Under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), a public agency's investigatory report, such as a police department's accident report, is admissible despite the Hearsay Rule to the extent that it sets forth the investigating officer's observations and knowledge, but insofar as it records statements by accident witnesses, there is an additional hearsay layer requiring an additional exception to be admissible.  Rule 803(8)… Read More

The trial court properly granted summary judgment against the plaintiff insureds who sought coverage under their named peril property insurance policy for loss of their frozen embryos due to a failure of the refrigeration unit of the embryo storage company.  The insureds could not prove that the embryos had suffered physical damage.  The storage company refused to say, and the… Read More

Plaintiff sued for defamation, alleging that defendants falsely told several reporters that plaintiff had provided explicit nude photographs of Bezos to the National Enquirer as part of a conspiracy to damage Bezos.  On defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion, plaintiff's only evidence was his declaration stating that several news reporters had told him that Bezos told them plaintiff had given the photos to… Read More

Under Evid. Code 1222, authorized admissions are an exception to the hearsay rule.  This decision holds that the exception applies to any authorized statements by an agent or employee, whether made to third parties or to other agents or employees of the same principal.  It also holds that under Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th… Read More

Explaining the California Supreme Court's relatively recent decisions dealing with the admissibility of expert testimony based on hearsay sources, this opinion explains that expert opinion is properly admissible if based on hearsay about background facts or principles of science and the like.  (See People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665; People v. Veamatahau (2020) 9 Cal.5th 16; People v. Valencia… Read More

Three conclusions reached in a Police Foundation report of the incident in which plaintiff was injured shoulld have been admitted into evidence under the adoptive admission exception to the hearsay rule.  (Evid. Code 1221, 1222.)  The police chief had stated at a press conference that he adopted the report's conclusions as true.  And, the police chief was authorized to make… Read More

None of the exceptions to hearsay rule applied to permit admission of plaintiff’s supervisor’s testimony that he had seen defendant’s name on invoices and shipping orders for asbestos-containing pipes. Read More

Plaintiff employee was not barred from testifying about her memory of the content of sexually suggestive emails defendant co-worker sent her since the emails themselves had been lost. Read More

A declarant's statement incriminating himself and denying involvement by others, including the defendant in this case, is sufficiently against the declarant's penal interest to allow its admission in evidence under the statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule in Evidence Code 1230.  Read More