Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The California Supreme Court Historical Society (CSCHS) describes itself as "a non-profit public benefit corporation dedicated to recovering, preserving, and promoting California’s legal and judicial history, with a particular emphasis on the State’s highest court." [1] It is chaired by Patricia Guerrero, the chief justice of California. [2]
The California Supreme Court and all lower California state courts use a different writing style and citation system from the federal courts and many other state courts. California citations have the year between the names of the parties and the reference to the case reporter, as opposed to the national standard (the Bluebook ) of putting the ...
The California Constitution originally made the Supreme Court the only appellate court for the whole state. As the state's population skyrocketed during the 19th century, the Supreme Court was expanded from three to seven justices, and then the Court began hearing the majority of appeals in three-justice panels.
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.
Defendant convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court; conviction affirmed by California Court of Appeal; California Supreme Court declined review, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, 535 U.S. 969 (2002). Holding; California's three strikes law does not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The California Supreme Court ruling curtails the ability of public employees in the state to seek help from the courts in labor disputes.
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Docket No. 22-1074) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding permit exactions under the Takings Clause.The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that fees for land-use permits must be closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the land use – the test established by Nollan v.
California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), [1] was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal "harmless error" rule must apply, instead of equivalent state rules, for reviewing trials where federally-protected rights had been violated.