California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Enterprise Ins. Co. v. Mulleague, 196 Cal.App.3d 528, 241 Cal.Rptr. 846 (Cal. App. 1987):
Defendant contends that he was denied due process of law. He first asserts that it is a denial of due process to render a decision without evidence or on the basis of evidence received out of court. (See Gimbel v. Laramie (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 77, 85-86, 5 Cal.Rptr. 88.) As defendant's cited authority recognizes, and we have already held, the objection has been waived by counsel's consent to the procedure followed. (Ibid.) Defendant asserts the procedure was a sham, citing the objections we have already resolved. Since we have rejected each of defendant's assertions of procedural error individually, those assertions do not cumulatively support a finding of a violation of due process of law.
[196 Cal.App.3d 541]
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.