• Kimberly A. Kralowec
    Kralowec Law, P.C.
    44 Montgomery Street,
    Suite 1210
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Tel: (415) 546-6800
    Fax: (415) 546-6801

May 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« Upcoming Prop. 64 oral argument | Main | Supreme Court grants review in Kintetsu »

Thursday, October 06, 2005


Scott McMillan

I've seen this practice of seeking judicial notice of legislative process materials becoming increasingly prevalent. I was introduced to the technique by one of my adversaries, who had obtained the entire legislative record for one statute. Since that time, I too, began attaching the entire record of a statute to my motions and appeals where legislative intent seemed appropriate. It seemed as though it wouldn't be proper to just put in a small bit of the record as the adversary would argue that the isolated statement was out of context. But, it seemed like much of the information that are in those records are superfluous and certainly wouldn't be admissible at trial. I'm certain that it is a dark day for our friends at Legislative Intent Services.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2018 Supreme Court Calendar



  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.

  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2018
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad