Summary of Opinion — Court of Appeal of California (1986)

Factual and Procedural Background

This document is a brief Court of Appeal entry from 1986 listing multiple cases and the procedural status of review by the California Supreme Court. The opinion lists the following cases and associated procedural notes exactly as provided in the text:

• Rojo v. Kliger — "Review granted. See 52 Cal.3d 65 for Supreme Court opinion."
• People v. Jones — "Review granted. See 51 Cal.3d 34 for Supreme Court opinion."
• Durant Software v. Herman — "Review granted July 13, 1989. Review dismissed as moot on August 1, 1990."
• Screen Extras Guild, Inc. v. Superior Court — "Review granted. See 51 Cal.3d 1017 for Supreme Court opinion."
• J.C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v. M.K. — "Review granted. See 52 Cal.3d 1009 for Supreme Court opinion."
• In re Marriage of Arceneaux — "Review granted. See 51 Cal.3d 1130 for Supreme Court opinion."

The entry contains no substantive factual narrative about the underlying disputes; it is limited to procedural references to review by the California Supreme Court (including one instance where review was later dismissed as moot).

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

The opinion mentions the following cases. The provided text does not state the rule or principle cited from each case nor how the Court of Appeal applied those precedents; that information is not available in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The provided text contains no substantive legal analysis. It functions as a procedural entry noting the status of appellate review for several cases (e.g., "Review granted," links to Supreme Court citations, and one notation that review was dismissed as moot on a specific date). There is no step-by-step application of legal principles to facts within the supplied text.

Holding and Implications

No substantive holding on the merits is set forth in this opinion; the entry records procedural actions regarding review by the California Supreme Court.

Implications:

• The direct effect recorded in the entry is procedural: the listed cases were noted as having review granted by the California Supreme Court, and one (Durant Software v. Herman) was noted as having review dismissed as moot on August 1, 1990.
• The provided opinion does not announce a new legal rule or set precedent within its text; it serves as a procedural docketing/status entry rather than a substantive appellate decision.

Source: Excerpt of the Court of Appeal entry provided; no additional substantive material was included in the supplied text.