Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The high court struggled over the next few years, without success, to formulate a coherent standard of review for this new kind of appellate review. [34] Regardless, the state legislature ratified and endorsed the new concept of administrative mandate in 1945 by enacting Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
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.
Superior Court (that is, the superior court is the respondent on appeal), and the real opponent is then listed below those names as the "real party in interest". This is why several U.S. Supreme Court decisions in cases that originated in California bear names like Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) and Burnham v.
Justices are elected for 12 year terms at the same time as the Governor. When a judge's term is expiring another judge from a different court can file a declaration of candidacy to succeed to the office presently held by the judge. [20] Most of California's roughly 1,600 superior court judges are first appointed by the governor of California. [21]
Coleman v. Brown [2] [3] (Previously Coleman v. Wilson) (), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 alleging unconstitutional mental health care by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Trucking Unlimited was the named plaintiff for a group of fourteen companies that accused the California Motor Transport Co. and eighteen others of forming a joint war chest. This fund was then used to oppose any applications by other companies to the PUC and ICC for operating rights and also court cases stemming from PUC or ICC decisions.
The California Policy Center, a state-focused think tank, says that its work is politics-focused and that its normal day-to-day meetings are now illegal under the law, Senate Bill 399.
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state. All nine ...