Legal Opinion
Abbott v. Mandiola
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 5, 1999No. G021145PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
J.Sometimes, because of congested court dockets and scheduling difficulties, the “direct calendar” judge who is assigned a case for all purposes is not the judge who conducts the trial. Such a reassignment can lead, as happened in the present case, to trouble. Certain pairs of proceedings must be heard by the same judge if he or she is able to do so: for example, trials and new trial motions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 661.) The judge who presided at trial is obviously the best qualified to determine the validity of the new trial motion and it makes no sense to have another…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Francis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- In Re Guardianship of the Person & Estate of SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Bidna v. RosenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- MacKey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
3Cited by13 opinions
- People v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. ReynosoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Zilog, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Heenan v. SobatiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Mix v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.