Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
In turn, it was the California Practice Act that served as the foundation of the California Code of Civil Procedure. New York never enacted Field's proposed civil or political codes, and belatedly enacted his proposed penal and criminal procedure codes only after California, but they were the basis of the codes enacted by California in 1872. [11]
For the Court Act to become fully effective, a constitutional amendment had to be submitted to the state electorate as Proposition 3, which was duly approved on November 7, 1950. [16] Despite ongoing calls for further reform and trial court unification, California's trial court system remained quite complex for several more decades.
In June, 1998, California passed Proposition 220, which allowed the judges in each county to determine if the county should have only one trial court. By 2001, all 58 counties had consolidated their courts into a single superior court. The California courts of appeal were added to the judicial branch by a constitutional amendment in 1904.
Decisions from federal courts are also frequently cited as a source of persuasive authority about California law, even by the California Supreme Court. [12] Although California courts have no obligation to follow federal precedents about matters of state law, they generally follow federal decisions on issues of federal law, even though they are ...
The California Code of Civil Procedure (abbreviated to Code Civ. Proc. in the California Style Manual [a] or just CCP in treatises and other less formal contexts) is a California code enacted by the California State Legislature in March 1872 as the general codification of the law of civil procedure in the U.S. state of California, along with the three other original Codes.
Sen. Jay Morris, R-West Monroe, has proposed a state constitutional amendment that would give legislators the authority to create specialized courts statewide with a two-thirds vote of lawmakers ...
Oyama v. State of California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948) was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that specific provisions of the 1913 and 1920 California Alien Land Laws abridged the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to Fred Oyama, a U.S. citizen in whose name his father, a Japanese citizen, had purchased land.