Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In New York, an effort to redesign court summons forms and notify people of their court dates using text messages reduced FTAs by 13% and 21%, respectively. [43] These interventions resulted in an estimated 30,000 fewer warrants issued over three years. [48] Critics note that attending court can be particularly onerous for low-income individuals.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
Case history; Prior: Cert. to the Supreme Court of California Holding; The failure to grant this indigent petitioner seeking initial review of his conviction the services of an advocate, as contrasted with an amicus curiae, which would have been available to an appellant with financial means, violated petitioner's rights to fair procedure and equality under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The litigation, filed directly in the California Supreme Court in an unusual move, comes as advocates have grown increasingly frustrated by the documented inability of many courts to find and hire ...
In January 2018, California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mr. Humphrey, holding that California’s money bail system violated due process and equal protection. [4] The ruling required trial court judges to consider a defendant’s ability to pay as well as non-monetary options for release when determining a bail amount ...
The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building , [ 1 ] but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento . [ 2 ]
A ballot measure that would have required voter approval for future state tax increases will not appear on the November ballot, California Supreme Court rules.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. [1]