Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Judicial Council of California has also promulgated the California Rules of Court, which includes such publications as the Standards of Judicial Administration and the Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitrations, under the authority of article VI, section 6, of the Constitution of California.
Today, the California Code of Civil Procedure is comprehensive only with regard to trial court procedure. As a result of a bill pushed through the legislature at the suggestion of Chief Justice Phil S. Gibson in 1941, appellate procedure in California is governed primarily by the California Rules of Court (specifically, Title 8, Appellate Rules).
The Judicial Council of California is the rule-making arm of the California court system. [1] In accordance with the California Constitution and under the leadership of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California, the council is responsible for "ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice."
This is how several famous California cases like Burnham v. Superior Court of California (1990) ended up with such unusual names. In Michigan law, the real-party-in-interest rule recognizes that litigation should be begun only by a party having an interest that will [ensure] sincere and vigorous advocacy. [1]
A leading court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is the 1998 California 4th District Court of Appeal decision Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. [18] In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland-based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract ...
A Marsden motion is the only means by which a criminal defendant can fire a court-appointed attorney or communicate directly with a judge in a California state court. [1] It is based on a defendant's claim that the attorney is providing ineffective assistance or has a conflict with the defendant. The name comes from the case People v. Marsden ...
The Supreme Court of California clarified the statute in American Philatelic Soc. v. Claibourne, stating that "the rules of unfair competition" should protect the public from "fraud and deceit". [9] In 1962, a California appellate court reiterated this rule by stating that the UCL extended "equitable relief to situations beyond the scope of ...
Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the defense of ignorance of the law when there is no legal notice. [1] The court held that when one is required to register one's presence, failure to register may be punished only when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to ...