Motion Picture & Television Fund Hospital v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
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
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
- Lewis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- People v. HullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. Superior Court (Lavi)California Supreme Court · 1993
- 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
- McAllister v. County of MontereyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Britts v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Bontilao v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Bravo v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- D.M. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.