Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On June 28, 2018, in the case of National Shooting Sports Foundation v. California, the California Supreme Court upheld the state's microstamping law. The court wrote, "Impossibility can occasionally excuse noncompliance with a statute. But impossibility does not authorize a court to go beyond interpreting a statute and simply invalidate it."
The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) is the court case management and electronic court filing (e-filing) system intended for use by the several courts, though development has been stalled since 2012. Since then, all courts not yet on CCMS have resorted to a variety of alternative solutions.
In 2002, the California Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) started the Second-Generation Electronic Filing Specification (2GEFS) project. [5]After a $200,000 consultant's report declared the project ready for a final push, the Judicial Council of California scrapped the program in 2012 after $500 million in costs.
The Court found in favor of the defendants, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the State of California; one resulting aspect of this decision was that the AWCA '89 "series" terminology used for AR and AK type weapons applied to all similar weapons, regardless of nomenclature (manufacturer, model number, version, variant, etc.). [12] [13]
The central source for information regarding NEFs remains in CM/ECF manuals. [2] [3] [4] [5]For example, the most explicit definition of the power and effect of NEF in the Central District of California, one of the most populous in the U.S., including Los Angeles County, remained in the "Unofficial Manual" of CM/ECF as follows (Rev 07, 2008, page 13): [2]
Most of California's roughly 1,600 superior court judges are first appointed by the governor of California. [29] A person is eligible to be a judge only if the person has been a member of the California State Bar or served as a judge of a court of record in this State for 10 years immediately preceding selection. [30]
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.
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.