§Why CasetextPricing

MAAS v. S.C. (PEOPLE) (To be called and continued to the September 2016 calendar.)

Petitioner’s Opening Brief on the Merits

25 Cited authorities

  1. In re Clark

    5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 3,135 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 347 times
    Holding independent review standard applies in the arbitrator appearance-of-bias context, and noting the issue has been the subject of conflicting opinions in the judicial context

  3. People v. Romero

    8 Cal.4th 728 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 367 times
    Explaining that California's constitution grants original jurisdiction in habeas corpus to the California Supreme Court

  4. People v. Villa

    45 Cal.4th 1063 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 240 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. Peracchi v. Superior Court

    30 Cal.4th 1245 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 126 times
    Finding the Legislature intended the term "new trial" be applied for disqualification purposes in criminal cases as the term is defined in the Penal Code

  6. Solberg v. Superior Court

    19 Cal.3d 182 (Cal. 1977)   Cited 216 times
    Rejecting "as applied" challenge to statute alleged to violate the doctrine of separate of powers

  7. Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service

    160 Cal.App.4th 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that “[a]n EMT's operation of an ambulance qualifies as professional negligence when the EMT is rendering services for which he or she is licensed or when a claim for damages is directly related to the provision of ambulance services by the EMT”

  8. McCartney v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications

    12 Cal.3d 512 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 91 times
    Holding benchside sentencing conferences with bailiff

  9. Home Insurance Co. v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 1025 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 32 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 66 times

    Docket No. Crim. 20522. January 25, 1979. Appeal from Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 3908, Edward T. Butler, Judge. COUNSEL Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel J. Kremer, Assistant Attorney General, Karl J. Phaler, Michael D. Wellington, Steven V. Adler, Gary W. Schons and Alan S. Meth, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant. Appellate Defenders, Inc., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and J. Perry Langford for Respondent

  11. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007

  12. Rule 8.50 - Applications

    Cal. R. 8.50   Cited 11 times

    (a)Service and filing Except as these rules provide otherwise, parties must serve and file all applications in the reviewing court, including applications to extend the time to file records, briefs, or other documents, and applications to shorten time. For good cause, the Chief Justice or presiding justice may excuse advance service. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2023; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Contents The application must state facts showing good cause or making

  13. Rule 1.21 - Service

    Cal. R. 1.21   Cited 7 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

  14. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any