Anthony Jama Hall v. Superior Court of Sacramento County

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

appeal or forever lose the opportunity to obtain appellate v. Alvarez (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1115, 1119.) Appellant review’ ”]; People v. Ramirez (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1412, is warned that by using fabricated legal authorities in legal 1420-1421 [“ ‘A timely notice of appeal, as a general matter, filings, his filings may be stricken (Cal. Rules of Court, is “essential to appellate jurisdiction” ’ ”].) The scope of our rule 8.204(e)(2)(B)), and he could be subject to sanctions. review is therefore limited to whether the trial court properly (Noland, at p. 445 [“relying on fabricated legal authority is denied appellant's petition for writ of mandate to review its sanctionable”].) prior order in appellant's government tort claim case. For the reasons stated above, we conclude it did. We finally address appellant's citations to several nonexistent DISPOSITION sources. For example, appellant argues, “[T]he trial court's refusal to consider attachments to a late claim petition The judgment is affirmed. Real party in interest shall recover [is] a violation of due process rights and an abuse of its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1)-(2).) discretion, as provided under Government Code section 911.5[, subdivision ](b) and contrary to the holding in County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th We concur: 305.” (Boldface omitted, italics added.) Neither of these legal authorities exist. Real party in interest identifies appellant's EARL, P. J. fabricated legal authorities but appellant persists, stating in his reply, “The authorities cited by [a]ppellant in the [o]pening MESIWALA, J. [b]rief are accurate, controlling, and properly cited, and each supports the legal propositions advanced.” (Boldface authorities cited in appellant's briefs are either nonexistent or wholly inaccurate for the propositions asserted. 1 We deny appellant's request for judicial notice because he failed to attach the documents in his request.

Authorities cited in the passage: County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 305 · s proposition. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited · People v. Ramirez · County of Sacramento v. Superior Court