Legal Opinion

Swenson v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 22, 1988No. B033944PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BOREN, J.

In this original proceeding, petitioners claim that the five-day extension of time provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, subdivision (a), applies to notice by mail of a master calendar assignment of an all-purpose judge. Petitioners, the plaintiffs below in a case subject to the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Trial Court Delay Reduction Act rules, received such notice by mail and 12 days later asserted a peremptory challenge (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6) to the assigned judge. The challenge was rejected as untimely, raising the issue before us in this proceeding:…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Augustyn v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  2. International Union of Operating Engineers v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  3. Beverly Union Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  4. Autoland, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
  5. California Business Council v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997

2 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