Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
All California appellate courts are required by the California Constitution to decide criminal cases in writing with reasons stated (meaning that even in criminal appeals where the defendant's own lawyer has tacitly conceded that the appeal has no merit, [6] the appellate decision must summarize the facts and law of the case and review possible ...
Appellate review of the decisions of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, [37] the Public Utilities Commission, [38] and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board of the Department of Industrial Relations [39] is available only by petition for writ of review (California's modern term for certiorari) to the relevant California Court of Appeal ...
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.
Sometimes, the appellate court finds a defect in the procedure the parties used in filing the appeal and dismisses the appeal without considering its merits, which has the same effect as affirming the judgment below. (This would happen, for example, if the appellant waited too long, under the appellate court's rules, to file the appeal.)
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 26150, 26155) before issuing a ...
In other courts, such as the Supreme Court of California, the same justice may write a majority opinion and a separate concurring opinion to express additional reasons in support of the judgment (which are joined only by a minority). [5] In some jurisdictions (e.g., California), the term may be abbreviated in certain contexts to conc. opn.
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d. 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972): In medical malpractices cases, informed consent is required of the patient and no expert is required for the case to be heard by a jury. Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004): Established the FSIA did not create new causes of action against foreign states.
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 ...