Legal Opinion

People v. Hull

California Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 1991No. S019254PublishedCited by 151 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PANELLI, J.

We granted review to determine whether a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3, subdivision (d)1 (hereafter section 170.3(d)) is the exclusive means by which a party may seek review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge against a trial judge. (§ 170.6.) We conclude, as did the Court of Appeal in this case, that section 170.3(d) prescribes the exclusive means of appellate review of an unsuccessful peremptory challenge.

Facts

Petitioner Alma Mae Hull (Hull) was charged by information with the sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352).2 She waived…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. People v. WoodheadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  3. People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. County of RiversideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989

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

3Cited by151 opinions

  1. People v. MayfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  2. People v. PanahCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  3. People v. BurgenerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  4. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  5. People v. ChatmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006

146 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