Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Five Superior Courts—in Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, and Ventura Counties—use CCMS version 3 to process civil cases. This represents approximately 25 percent of the civil case volume in California. [3] Fresno is the only Superior Court still using version 2 of CCMS.
Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving substantive due process in the context of paternity law. Splitting five to four, the Court rejected a challenge to a California law that presumed that a married woman's child was a product of that marriage, holding that the due ...
The California Courts of Appeal are the state intermediate appellate courts in the U.S. state of California. The state is geographically divided along county lines into six appellate districts. [1] The Courts of Appeal form the largest state-level intermediate appellate court system in the United States, with 106 justices.
The Court has original jurisdiction in a variety of cases, including habeas corpus proceedings, and has the authority to review all the decisions of the California courts of appeal, as well as an automatic appeal for cases where the death penalty has been issued by the trial court. [8]
To be eligible to become a superior court judge in California, one must have been a member of the State Bar of California for at least ten years. [3] One quirk of California law is that when a party petitions the appellate courts for a writ of mandate (California's version of mandamus), the case name becomes [petitioner name] v.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services.
March 19, 1986, T 51/84 (Coded distinctive mark/Stockburger). [2] The Board held that if a claim focuses solely on procedural steps involved in applying a coded distinctive mark to an object without indicating or presupposing technical means for carrying them out, a process of this kind is excluded from patentability by Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC.