Legal Opinion
People v. Parmar
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 30, 2001No. C032818PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SCOTLAND, P. J.
Upon certification by the Appellate Division of the Sacramento County Superior Court, we ordered this appeal transferred to this court in order to settle an important question of law. (Pen. Code, § 1471.)
The defendants, Prakash Vallabhdas Parmar and Rosemary Parmar, are facing a 250-count misdemeanor complaint arising out of their ownership and operation of two contiguous motels on Auburn Boulevard in Sacramento County. On defendants’ motion, the trial court entered an order disqualifying Deputy District Attorney Rita-Jane Spillane, her immediate supervisors, and the…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- South Dakota v. DoleSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- People v. BirksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- People v. TurnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Quantification Settlement Agreement CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Hambarian v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- In re StierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- KB HOME v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Spaccia v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.