Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.
The California Constitution originally made the Supreme Court the only appellate court for the whole state. As the state's population skyrocketed during the 19th century, the Supreme Court was expanded from three to seven justices, and then the Court began hearing the majority of appeals in three-justice panels.
In California law, when a case goes up on writ of mandate (California's version of mandamus), the appellant goes first in the case caption on appeal as the petitioner, and the superior court becomes the respondent. The actual opponent is listed below those names as the "real party in interest."
One quirk of California law is that when a party petitions the appellate courts for a writ of mandate (California's version of mandamus), the case name becomes [petitioner name] v. Superior Court (that is, the superior court is the respondent on appeal), and the real opponent is then listed below those names as the " real party in interest ".
The District was created on September 28, 1850, following the passage of the California Statehood Act on September 9, 1850. The state was divided into a Northern and Southern district. The Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 abolished the Northern and Southern districts, re-organizing California as a single circuit district.
Thus, the official reporter of decisions of the California Supreme Court (titled California Reports) is abbreviated "Cal." (or, for subsequent series, "Cal. 2d," "Cal. 3d", or "Cal. 4th"). Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928), a case in the New York Court of Appeals, reported in New York Reports. Note that the New York ...
In Nollan v.California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional.
The University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center, a research and education hospital, admitted Hugo Tunkl for treatment of a condition related to a particular condition under study at the time. As a condition of being admitted for treatment, the hospital required that Tunkl sign a contract that included the following provision: