Legal Opinion

Stephens v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 8, 2002No. D038328PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.

This case involves the interplay between two provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 concerning peremptory challenges of judges. Section 170.6, subdivision (2), provides that in a case assigned to a judge for all purposes, a late-appearing party can bring a motion to disqualify the judge (i.e., a peremptory challenge) within 10 days after the party’s appearance. However, the same subdivision also contains a provision precluding a peremptory challenge after the judge has decided contested fact issues relating to the merits. We hold that the latter provision…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Jacobs v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. People v. CastelloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. McClenny v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Pappa v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  5. People v. Abdul Y.California Court of Appeal · 1982

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Maas v. Superior Court of San Diego CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Geddes v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Hemingway v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. Pickett v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. People v. LetteerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

19 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