Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 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.
The court refused to exercise its discretion to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor for Ewing, which triggered the Three Strikes Law. Ewing appealed, saying that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime under the Eighth Amendment, but the US Supreme Court affirmed the court's ruling in Ewing v. California. [19]
The California Supreme Court ruling curtails the ability of public employees in the state to seek help from the courts in labor disputes.
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.
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge by Uber and Lyft to lawsuits by the state of California on behalf of drivers who signed agreements to keep legal disputes ...
More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law. [3] Because the right to file a special motion to strike is substantive immunity to suit, rather than a merely procedural right, federal courts apply the law to state law claims they hear under diversity jurisdiction. [4]