22 Cited authorities

  1. In re Clark

    5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 1,151 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single, timely petition for writ of habeas corpus, successive and/or untimely petitions will be summarily denied"
  2. Haworth v. Superior Court

    50 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 229 times
    Reversing the appellate court's decision to vacate an arbitration award for violation of § 1281.9 because the alleged conflict that the arbitrator failed to disclose was both remote in time and unrelated to the subject matter of the dispute under arbitration
  3. People v. Romero

    8 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 246 times
    Discussing the standards for receiving an evidentiary hearing
  4. People v. Villa

    45 Cal.4th 1063 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 120 times
    Holding that collateral consequences, such as the loss of the license to practice medicine, sex offender registration, inability to vote, or inability to serve on a jury, do not constitute constructive custody
  5. Solberg v. Superior Court

    19 Cal.3d 182 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 195 times
    In Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182, 188, [137 Cal.Rptr. 460, 561 P.2d 1148], for example, the People contested the refusal of a municipal court judge to accept a peremptory challenge by filing a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court. No one questioned the propriety of that procedure, and we eventually reviewed the matter on the merits.
  6. Peracchi v. Superior Court

    30 Cal.4th 1245 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 66 times
    In Peracchi v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1245, our Supreme Court noted that even a remand for resentencing after an appeal from the judgment "does not necessarily operate... to vacate the original sentence."
  7. Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Servs

    160 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 34 times
    Explaining that emergency medical technicians and ambulance companies are health care providers under section 304.5
  8. McCartney v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications

    12 Cal.3d 512 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 89 times
    In McCartney v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 12 Cal.3d 512, 519, 526 P.2d 268, 273, 116 Cal.Rptr. 260, 265 (1974), the California Supreme Court rejected an argument that the failure to afford the judge involved an opportunity to "present such matters as he may choose" as required by Commission rules required dismissal of the proceeding because the judge was denied due process of law.
  9. The Home Ins. Co. v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 1025 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 24 times

    No. S110328 January 13, 2005 Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC005158, Joseph R. Kalin, Judge. Retired judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. Charlston, Revich, Chamberlin Williams, Charlston, Revich Chamberlin, Stephen P. Soskin and Timothy F. Rivers for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Latham Watkins, David L. Mulliken, Charles S. Treat, Diana Strauss Casey and Marc

  10. In re Lawler

    23 Cal.3d 190 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 53 times
    Reversing habeas grant by San Diego County Superior Court due to petitioner's failure to establish a prima facie case for relief
  11. Rule 1.21 - Service

    Cal. R. 1.21   Cited 1 times

    (a) Service on a party or attorney Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must be made on the party's attorney if the party is represented. (b) "Serve and file" As used in these rules, unless a statute or rule provides for a different method for filing or service, a requirement to "serve and file" a document means that a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each party separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any other person or