Legal Opinion
People v. Superior Court (Gonzales)
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 4, 1991No. Docket Nos. B054712, B056223PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BOREN, J.
The People seek a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to honor their peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.
In People v. Superior Court (Hall) (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1081 [207 Cal.Rptr. 131], we held that for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, the assignment of a case to a particular department, rather than to the judge assigned to that department, was not an assignment to a judge “for all purposes,” but was subject to the “10-day/5-day rule” set forth in subdivision (2) of that section. In Mackey v. Superior Court (1990) 221…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Marcotte v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- International Union of Operating Engineers v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
- Lawrence v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- People v. Superior Court (Hall)California Court of Appeal · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Reygoza v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Shipp v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- People v. Bilbrey, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. VillanuevaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- People v. BilbreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.