California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Hamilton v. Yates, F058630, No. 08CECG02352 (Cal. App. 2010):
In Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, the court acknowledged that "[v]arious tests or rules have been suggested to determine whether a court which has taken judicial notice of a document may take the further step of accepting its truth or adopting a proposed interpretation of its meaning.'" (Id. at p. 374, italics added.) The court proceeded to identify three approaches, which were designed primarily to address the truthfulness of a statement in a document subject to judicial notice. (Id. at pp. 374-375.) For example, the court stated:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.