Legal Opinion
Flier v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 11, 1994No. Docket Nos. A064511, A064612PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEIN, J.
Summary
By petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d)) 1 the People challenge the disqualification of the Honorable Richard S. Flier from hearing People v. Perkins (Super. Ct. Contra Costa County, 1993, No. 934086-0). The decision to disqualify Judge Flier was based upon section 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C) (hereafter § 170.1(a)(6)(C)), which provides that a judge shall be disqualified if “a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.” We will grant the People’s petition for writ of mandate…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Dix v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Solberg v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- People v. HullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Pool v. City of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- People v. PanahCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- Haworth v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
- Drum v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Linney v. TurpenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd.Nevada Supreme Court · 1995
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.