Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state constitutions, state courts, governors, ballot initiatives, or other ...
On September 19, 2011, an appellate court ruled that the "Top Two" system was constitutional. [12] The case then returned to the Superior Court of San Francisco County. On August 1, 2012, Judge Curtis Karnow awarded $243,279 in legal fees not to the nominal defendants in the case, which were officials of the State of California represented by ...
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]
In California, candidates for public office could gain access to the general ballot by winning a qualified political party's primary. In 1996, voter-approved Proposition 198 changed California's partisan primary from a closed primary, in which only a political party's members can vote on its nominees, to a blanket primary, in which each voter's ballot lists every candidate regardless of party ...
Perez v. Sharp, [1] also known as Perez v. Lippold or Perez v.Moroney, is a 1948 case decided by the Supreme Court of California in which the court held by a 4–3 majority that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The 300-page final report reviewed the history and legal significance of various questions around the Supreme Court, but did not support any structural changes. [14] While it was generally supportive of allowing TV cameras in the courtroom , it did not take a position on issues such as term limits or expanding the court .
Dynamex then petitioned for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision with the California Supreme Court. [34] Dynamex argued that the Superior Court had erred because the definitions of employment offered by Martinez were only applicable to the determination of whether an entity is a joint employer of the workers in question. [35]
Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that attorneys who are required to be members of a state bar association have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization’s political or ideological activities.