Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Hull

California Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 1991No. S019254Published

1DissentKennard, J.

I dissent.

The majority holds that a party seeking review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge to a trial judge can do so only by petitioning for a writ of mandate within 10 days of notice of the disputed ruling, and not by post-judgment appeal. Although the majority’s holding has practical advantages— immediate writ review generally will avoid reversal and retrial, thus promoting judicial economy—it finds no support in the statutory scheme.

I. The Two Removal Methods

The Code of Civil Procedure1 sets out two separate methods by which a party may prevent a trial judge or other judicial…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Reichert v. General Insurance of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Oak Grove School District v. City Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Briggs v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. People v. Christian J.California Court of Appeal · 1984
  5. People v. National Association of RealtorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

5 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