Ad
related to: unlawful detainer actions california court case informationpdffiller.com has been visited by 1M+ users in the past month
A Must Have in your Arsenal - cmscritic
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For cases where the public defender has a legal conflict or is otherwise unable to provide services, services are provided by a group of private attorneys compensated by the Court. The County of Sacramento coordinates this process through the Conflict Criminal Defenders Office.
Each registry automatically receives a notification from various metropolitan housing courts whenever any tenant is sued by a landlord. In areas without housing courts, lists of named defendants in unlawful detainer suits will be compiled from court records. Usually there is a period of time before those records become public, and if the suit ...
Depending on the laws of the jurisdiction, eviction may also be known as unlawful detainer, summary possession, summary dispossess, summary process, forcible detainer, ejectment, and repossession, among other terms. Nevertheless, the term eviction is the most commonly used in communications between the landlord and tenant.
The legislature passed the Ellis Act in response to the California Supreme Court's decision in Nash v. City of Santa Monica [ 2 ] (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 97 that held that municipalities could prevent landlords from evicting their tenants to "go out of business" in order to withdraw their property from the rental market.
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 California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress. However, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, reinstating the trial court's decision. Although the State conceded that the police had no lawful basis to effect the traffic stop, the California Supreme Court still held that the trial ...
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.
Full case name: IN RE: KENNETH HUMPHREY, on Habeas Corpus. Holding; Undecided at Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California, held that setting money bail in an amount a defendant cannot possibly afford amounts to unconstitutional detention of a person before they have been convicted of a crime.