Legal Opinion
Paterno v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 26, 2004No. C046473PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BUTZ, J.
In 1985, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2) (hereafter section 170.6(a)(2)), 2 to permit a party to make a peremptory challenge when the same trial judge is assigned to conduct a “new trial” after a reversal on appeal. (Stats. 1985, ch. 715, § 1, p. 2350; see Stegs Investments v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 572, 575 [284 Cal.Rptr. 495] (Stegs).) The amendment goes on to provide that the right may be exercised regardless of whether the party has previously used a peremptory challenge, as long as the challenge is made within…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- People v. Christian S.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Solberg v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Orange County Employees Retirement System Board of DirectorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Paterno v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Peracchi v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Geddes v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- BURDUSIS v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- First Federal Bank of California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Jane Doe 8015 v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Akopyan v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2020
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.