Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, Rule 7, provides that "except in cases involving custody of children", an appellant may obtain a stay on a lower court judgment and all other further proceedings by filing a supersedeas bond in the Superior Court. [6] In California, for instance, the supersedeas bond amount must be 150% of the ...
Amount in controversy (sometimes called jurisdictional amount) is a term used in civil procedure to denote the amount at stake in a lawsuit, in particular in connection with a requirement that persons seeking to bring a lawsuit in a particular court must be suing for a certain minimum amount (or below a certain maximum amount) before that court may hear the case.
A deficiency judgment is a court judgment that is a public record of the amount owed and by whom. In many states, items included in calculating the amount of a deficiency judgment include: the loan principal, accrued interest and attorney fees, less the amount the lender bid at the foreclosure sale. [3]
Court fees payable on conviction unless good cause shown [8] Arizona: Court fees never available in a criminal case, even in cases of a bad faith argument [9] Arkansas: Court costs assessed on conviction or guilty plea; [10] $150 for misdemeanor or felony violation and $75 for local ordinance [10] California Colorado
"Abstract of judgment" is a written summary of a judgment which states how much money the losing defendant owes to the person who won the lawsuit (judgment creditor), the rate of interest to be paid on the judgment amount, court costs, and any specific orders that the losing defendant (judgment debtor) must obey, which abstract is acknowledged ...
A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.
The court applied similar reasoning to the writ of prohibition the next year. [34] To avoid the obvious implication that nearly all California government agency decisions were now entirely immune from judicial review, the court held in 1939 that the writ of mandate could be used instead for that purpose. [34]
Regents of the University of California [1] was a leading case in California that established a persuasive six-factor test that helps guide courts to decide when a contract relates to the "public interest." Specifically, California courts had a history of holding exculpatory liability waivers within contracts to be valid only if they did not ...