§Why CasetextPricing

STEEN v. APPELLATE DIVISION

Petitioner’s Supplemental Traverse to Return of Respondent; Motion to Strike; and Request for Evidentiary Hearing

16 Cited authorities

  1. In re Kathy P

    25 Cal.3d 91 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 241 times
    Recognizing jurisdiction conferred upon commissioners and traffic referees to conduct trials regarding traffic infractions

  2. People v. Gonzalez

    12 Cal.4th 804 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 85 times
    Rejecting collateral bar rule

  3. Mills v. Municipal Court

    10 Cal.3d 288 (Cal. 1973)   Cited 154 times
    In Mills v. Municipal Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d 288, 110 Cal.Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273, speaking for a unanimous court Justice Tobriner stated: "Under the federal Constitution, the right to trial by jury is guaranteed only for 'non-petty' offenses, involving a potential punishment of more than six months' imprisonment.

  4. In re Dennis B

    18 Cal.3d 687 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 116 times
    Noting that "highway patrol officers * * * perform certain tasks for which deputy district or city attorneys are usually required [t]his type of flexibility benefits all parties: defendants gain a swift and inexpensive disposition of their cases without risk of major penalties; and the prosecution, the court system, and ultimately the public benefit because judicial and law enforcement resources are freed to concentrate on serious criminal behavior"

  5. People v. Carlucci

    23 Cal.3d 249 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 105 times
    Discussing Evid.Code, § 775's codification of “traditional case law”

  6. Gananian v. Wagstafhe

    199 Cal.App.4th 1532 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 31 times
    Interpreting Education Code section 15288 not to create a nondiscretionary duty on the part of district attorneys to investigate alleged crimes related to the expenditure of certain bond funds

  7. Gordon v. Justice Court

    12 Cal.3d 323 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 73 times
    Discussing disadvantages of permitting a nonattorney to act as a justice court judge in a criminal proceeding

  8. Sundance v. Municipal Court

    42 Cal.3d 1101 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 47 times
    Explaining that “waste” includes public spending that is “completely unnecessary, or useless, or provides no public benefit” without being fraudulent or collusive

  9. People v. Municipal Court

    27 Cal.App.3d 193 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 61 times
    Noting that portions of Pol. Code, § 4153 were later recodified in certain Gov. Code sections

  10. People v. Gephart

    93 Cal.App.3d 989 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 38 times
    In Gephart, defendants were convicted of armed robbery in Siskiyou County, California, after the superior court in that county refused to suppress evidence which had been ordered suppressed as a result of a section 1538.5 suppression motion made in a prior prosecution of the defendants on different charges in the superior court in Stanislaus County, California.