September 2015 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 249: Evidently Objectionable

 To access the article related to this test, please click here.

  
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-assessment activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


 

Test Sheet
 



  
Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. The California Rules of Court contain deadlines for filing written objections to evidence in any papers supporting or opposing a civil motion.


2. A party wishing to make an oral objection to evidence at the hearing on a summary judgment motion must ensure that a court reporter is present at the hearing.


3. A party may file written objections to evidence in the papers on a motion for summary judgment any time before the hearing on the motion.


4. A trial court need not rule on objections to evidence in summary judgment papers unless the evidence is material to the disposition of the motion.


5. If a trial court does not rule on an objection to evidence in summary judgment papers, the objection is presumed overruled.


6. If a party does not oppose an objection to evidence in summary judgment papers, but the court does not rule on the objection, that party may challenge the objection on appeal.


7. The California Rules of Court require that oppositions to objections to evidence in summary judgment papers be made in writing.


8. The California Code of Civil Procedure does not address how to submit oppositions to objections to evidence in summary judgment papers.


9. The California Rules of Court do not address how to submit oppositions to objections to evidence in summary judgment papers.


10. If a party making an objection to evidence in summary judgment papers does not obtain a ruling from the trial court on that objection, that party has waived the objection on appeal.


11. The California Supreme Court has criticized a trend of parties submitting excessive evidentiary objections with summary judgment papers.


12. California's anti-SLAPP statute allows defendants who believe they have been sued for an act in furtherance of their right of petition or free speech under the U.S. or California Constitution in connection with a public issue to file a special motion to strike the offending causes of action.


13. When analyzing the merits of a special motion to strike a cause of action under California's anti-SLAPP statute, the first step is to assess whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim.


14. Cases concerning evidentiary objections in summary judgment proceedings are also applicable to evidentiary objections in anti-SLAPP proceedings.


15. Declarations in civil litigation must state that they are made under penalty of perjury.


16. The California Judicial Council has recommended amending the summary judgment statute to state that trial courts need not rule on evidentiary objections in summary judgment proceedings.


17. There are no appellate cases showing that trial courts have ruled on evidentiary objections with motions beyond summary judgment motions and anti-SLAPP motions.


18. There are appellate cases showing that trial courts have ignored evidentiary objections with motions beyond summary judgment motions and anti-SLAPP motions.


19. Federal courts have used local rules to specify procedures for making evidentiary objections.


20. At least one California state court has used local rules to specify procedures for making evidentiary objections.


Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education legal ethics credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.