Obviously there will be cases where the margin of error is wide enough to
allow judicial notice to be taken.
While the non-citation rule prohibits citation to any unpublished opinion, judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452 (d)(1) may be made as to the «[r] ecords of any court of this state...» On its face, this statute
allows judicial notice of any opinion of the Court of Appeal as a record of a court of this state.
Essentially, KRE 201
allows judicial notice to be taken of «facts «which can be determined from unimpeachable sources.»
Not exact matches
The abatement
allows public authorities to immediately decrease or stop a nuisance without
notice or a
judicial hearing.
I do think the idea of
allowing something close to
judicial notice in place of expert evidence could only have one of two effects: 1) The judge would have decide on a case - by - case basis whether he or she is qualified to advise himself / herself as to «law» generally, or 2) The judge would have to undertake a self - qualification analysis to determine whether he or she is sufficiently expert in the area of law in question to forego actual expert evidence.
Although it is commonly believed that the no - citation rule in Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115 (a) prohibits the citation to an unpublished opinion, this rule is inconsistent with the
judicial notice statute
allowing citation to the «[r] ecords of -LSB--RSB- any court of this state...» In this conflict, California Constitution Article VI, § 6 (d) provides that «[t] he rules [of court] adopted shall not be inconsistent with statute.»
In this conflict, the
judicial notice statute should take precedence, and courts should
allow unpublished opinions to be cited as persuasive authority.
Judicial notice — learned treatises — reopening proof once jury sent out to deliberate may be
allowed
Taking
judicial notice of the law is usually prohibited, but exceptions are discussed when this is
allowed.