Legal Opinion

Hall v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 26, 2005No. B184247PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Panchita Hall seeks a writ of mandate to compel respondent superior court to permit her to file her Pitchess 1 motion and to rule on the merits of her motion. She claims the Criminal Division of the South Central District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court enforces an invalid local rule requiring all pretrial motions, regardless of nature or type, be both filed and heard 30 days before trial, and for this reason the court refused to calendar her Pitchess motion filed 30 days before trial. We conclude the court’s apparent practice of requiring all motions to be filed…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Ungar v. SarafiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Pitchess v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  4. People v. MoocCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Jennings v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Elkins v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. In Re GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  3. People v. Albert C. (In Re Albert C.)California Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Alvarez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. Elkins v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API