Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct.. Actions that can be classified as judicial misconduct include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts (as an extreme example: "falsification of facts" at summary judgment); using the ...
One of the piles of debris left over after demolition of the Bay Meadows racetrack. Taken from a passing Caltrain train in March 2009.. After the track failed to acquire a two-year extension of the deadline to replace its dirt oval with an artificial surface for the safety of the horses from the California Horse Racing Board, it was announced that Bay Meadows intended to close November 4, 2006 ...
The grand experiment to revive horse racing in Northern California is coming to an end. On Monday, the board of the California Assn. of Racing Fairs voted unanimously, 6-0, to withdraw its ...
The Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96–458, 94 Stat. 2035, also known as the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, is a United States federal law concerning misconduct and disability on the part of article III judges.
The judicial system of California is the largest in the United States that is fully staffed by professional law-trained judges. [3] In fiscal year 2020-21, the state judiciary's 2,000 judicial officers and 18,000 judicial branch employees processed approximately 4.4 million cases. [4] In comparison, the federal judicial system has only about ...
Motorcycle racing's Sacramento Mile continues to be held at the new California Exposition as part of the AMA Grand National Championship. A 2.1-mile (3.4-km) road course was laid out in the parking lots surrounding the oval, and used for sports car racing between 1955 and 1969. [3] [4] It hosted a SCCA National Sports Car Championship round in ...
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 ...
The resolution was referred to the "Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union" and agreed to by the House on June 13, 1930. [ 157 ] On February 18, 1931, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 71-2714, of their findings, and introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 362, stating insufficient grounds existed for impeachment.