Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706, was a 1933 court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. [1]
"In any court of this state, any suitor may prosecute or defend his suit either in his own proper person or by an attorney of the suitor's choice." [1] Wyoming: Const Art 1 § 8 "All courts shall be open and every person for an injury done to person, reputation or property shall have justice administered without sale, denial, or delay." [1] Wyoming
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.
So the California courts allow a defendant represented by court-appointed counsel to directly communicate with the trial judge in the context of a Marsden motion, and only in such a context. A Marsden motion is a formal request made by a criminal defendant to the court. The court hears arguments on the motion from the defendant and the attorney ...
Because the need for minimum contacts is a matter of personal jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear the claim with respect to a particular party) instead of subject matter jurisdiction (the power of the court to hear this kind of claim at all), a party can explicitly or implicitly waive their right to object to the court hearing the case.
An Australian judge has annulled the marriage of a Melbourne couple after the bride told the court that she took part in the wedding ceremony believing it was a social media “prank ...
A California newlywed was reportedly killed by two men who crashed his wedding reception. Joe Melgoza, 30, died the day after his wedding from blunt head trauma, according to NBC News .
A San Francisco trial court threw out all of the gender requirements on state constitutional grounds. On appeal, an intermediate court reversed that decision. In December 2006, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to review all six cases and held oral argument on March 4, 2008, consolidating the cases as In re Marriage Cases. [24]