Ad
related to: motion to appear via telephone california
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
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 ".
People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (Cal. January 3, 2011) was a Supreme Court of California case, which held that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search information contained within a cell phone in a lawful arrest. [1]
The Stored Communications Act (SCA, codified at 18 U.S.C. Chapter 121 §§ 2701–2713) [1] is a law that addresses voluntary and compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party Internet service providers (ISPs).
The California Supreme Court on Thursday took the rare step of removing a measure from the November ballot that would have made it harder to raise taxes, siding with Gov. Gavin Newsom by ruling ...
In California, the process of impeachment has existed throughout its statehood allowing the State Legislature to remove certain officeholders. The State Assembly can initiate an impeachment, bringing about an impeachment trial in the State Senate through which an officeholder can be either suspended from office or removed from their office and disqualified from again holding state office.
A ballot measure that would have required voter approval for future state tax increases will not appear on the November ballot, California Supreme Court rules.
A limited appearance is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to describe a civil defendant's appearance in a quasi in rem action in the court of another state to dispute liability to the limited extent of the value of the property seized by that court. [3]