The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.
A temporary judge to whom the parties to this divorce proceeding had stipulated violated his ethical duties by failing to promptly disclose to wife that he had been employed, after first being appointed to this case, as a neutral in two new cases in which husband's lawyer was an attorney for one of the parties. Under the Code of Judicial… Read More
No matter what its title, an order assigning a case (or here, a habeas corpus petition) to a particular judge is an all purpose assignment that requires a party to file a 170.6 motion within ten days of the assignment or of the party's appearance, whichever is later if (a) the order instantly pinpoints the judge whom the parties can… Read More
Under CCP 170.6, a party may peremptorily challenge a judge who presided at a prior trial of the action if the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. However, as Peracchi v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1245 held, a new trial is “a reexamination of an issue of fact in the same court after… Read More
When cases are merely related—as opposed to consolidated—transfer of one of them to a new judge based on an effective 170.6 challenge does not require or allow transfer of the other related case in which no challenge is filed. Read More
A superior court’s branch with only one sitting judge is still part of a larger court with more than one authorized judge, so the normal rules setting the time for filing a 170.6 challenge apply, not CCP 170.6(a)(2) which sets a special rule for courts authorized to have only one judge. Read More
