Legal Opinion

Mallett v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 9, 1992No. C009144PublishedCited by 5 opinions

[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

DAVIS, J.

I. Introduction

Pursuant to Government Code section 68073, county boards of supervisors are to provide “suitable” rooms for holding superior, municipal and justice courts and “sufficient” attendants, equipment, furniture and supplies necessary for the transaction of the business of the court.1 Petitioners, the *1858municipal court judges of the Stockton Municipal Court,2 concluded that the services of its then elected marshal, real party in interest Benvenuto “Nick” Croci, were inadequate and that he was not supplying the court with sufficient attendants for its needs. After…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Bradley v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. Continental Baking Co. v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. City of Sacramento v. DrewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  4. City and County of San Francisco v. FarrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  5. O'Coin's, Inc. v. Treasurer of the County of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1972

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Superior Court v. County of MendocinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Thorpe v. Long Beach Community College DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. Borg-Warner Protective Services Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  4. Mallett v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  5. Tash v. The Permanente Medical Group CA3California Court of Appeal · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API