Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The People of the State of California v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 CAL. 4TH 497, 917 P.2D 628 (Cal. 1996), was a landmark case in the state of California that gave California Superior Court judges the ability to dismiss a criminal defendant's "strike prior" pursuant to the California Three-strikes law, thereby avoiding a 25-to-life minimum sentence.
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.
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 conservative justices will hear a case that might pave the way for companies to pursue claims against unions over work stoppages.
A motion to strike is a request by one party in a United States trial requesting that the presiding judge order the removal of all or part of the opposing party's pleading to the court. These motions are most commonly sought by the defendant, as to a matter contained in the plaintiff's complaint; however, they may also be asserted by plaintiffs ...
The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up an appeal from conservative states challenging California’s ability to establish strict vehicle emission rules that effectively set the standard for ...
The California Supreme Court ruling curtails the ability of public employees in the state to seek help from the courts in labor disputes.
In 1936, the Supreme Court of California held that because the state constitution reserves judicial decisionmaking to the judicial branch, it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to review the decision of a state board unless that board had been expressly authorized by the state constitution to exercise judicial power. [34]