Legal Opinion

Motion Picture & Television Fund Hospital v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 12, 2001No. B147436PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

THE COURT. *

The question before this court is the commencement of the statutory time period for filing a peremptory challenge to a newly assigned direct calendar judge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6.) We hold the time commences when the parties receive notice of the assignment.

In this proceeding, defendant Motion Picture and Television Fund Hospital (defendant) petitions for issuance of a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to vacate its order accepting a peremptory challenge (§ 170.6) and to deny the challenge as untimely. Following our review of the petition and the relevant…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Lewis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  3. People v. HullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. People v. Superior Court (Lavi)California Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Mediterranean Constr. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. McAllister v. County of MontereyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  2. Britts v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Bontilao v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. Bravo v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. D.M. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011

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