ruling on a peremptory challenge (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

ruling on a peremptory challenge in California

5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Hullgreen
cal · 1991 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2002–2013
2 sentences

2013Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d), providing the “determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal . . .” filed within 10 days after service of written of notice of entry of the court’s order is the exclusive means for seeking review of a ruling on a peremptory challenge to a judge (italics omitted)]; see also People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 275 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ] [“The Legislature, through [Code of Civil Procedure] section 170.3(d), has specifically det

2013Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d), providing the “determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal . . .” filed within 10 days after service of written of notice of entry of the court’s order is the exclusive means for seeking review of a ruling on a peremptory challenge to a judge (italics omitted)]; see also People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 275 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ] [“The Legislature, through [Code of Civil Procedure] section 170.3(d), has specifically det

23
Guedalia v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009(See People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 269-276 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ]; Guedalia v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1159-1163 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 99 ]; Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 751 , 16 P.3d 166 ].) "[A] timely writ petition is the exclusive avenue for appellate court review whether the judge's disqualification is sought for cause (per CCP §170.1) or by peremptory challenge (per CCP §170.6); the ruling is neither directly appealable nor reviewable on appeal *850 from the subsequent final judgment." (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Pr

2009(See People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 269-276 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ]; Guedalia v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1159-1163 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 99 ]; Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 751 , 16 P.3d 166 ].) "[A] timely writ petition is the exclusive avenue for appellate court review whether the judge's disqualification is sought for cause (per CCP §170.1) or by peremptory challenge (per CCP §170.6); the ruling is neither directly appealable nor reviewable on appeal *850 from the subsequent final judgment." (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Pr

11
Curle v. Superior Court of Shasta Countygreen
cal · 2001 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009(See People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 269-276 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ]; Guedalia v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1159-1163 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 99 ]; Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 751 , 16 P.3d 166 ].) "[A] timely writ petition is the exclusive avenue for appellate court review whether the judge's disqualification is sought for cause (per CCP §170.1) or by peremptory challenge (per CCP §170.6); the ruling is neither directly appealable nor reviewable on appeal *850 from the subsequent final judgment." (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Pr

2009(See People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 269-276 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 526 , 820 P.2d 1036 ]; Guedalia v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1159-1163 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 99 ]; Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 751 , 16 P.3d 166 ].) "[A] timely writ petition is the exclusive avenue for appellate court review whether the judge's disqualification is sought for cause (per CCP §170.1) or by peremptory challenge (per CCP §170.6); the ruling is neither directly appealable nor reviewable on appeal *850 from the subsequent final judgment." (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Pr

11
Kaslavage v. West Kern County Water Districtgreen
calctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Remedial statutes are to be liberally construed and “the modem trend of decisions [is] in favor of granting relief unless absolutely forbidden by statute [citations].” (Kaslavage v. West Kern County Water Dist. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 529, 538 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 729 ].) Appellate review of the ruling on a peremptory challenge is part of the remedy.

1987Remedial statutes are to be liberally construed and “the modem trend of decisions [is] in favor of granting relief unless absolutely forbidden by statute [citations].” (Kaslavage v. West Kern County Water Dist. (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 529, 538 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 729 ].) Appellate review of the ruling on a peremptory challenge is part of the remedy.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Swift v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA CTY. green
calctapp · 2009
1 sentence

2026(Swift v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 878, 882 ; Jane Doe 8015 v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 489, 493 .) When a judge has been assigned to a case for all purposes, a party must bring a motion to challenge the judge within 15 days of the all-purpose assignment. (§ 170.6, subd. (a)(2).) The clock begins to run when the party 5 receives notice of the all-purpose assignment.

12026–2026
Jane Doe 8015 v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2026(Swift v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 878, 882 ; Jane Doe 8015 v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 489, 493 .) When a judge has been assigned to a case for all purposes, a party must bring a motion to challenge the judge within 15 days of the all-purpose assignment. (§ 170.6, subd. (a)(2).) The clock begins to run when the party 5 receives notice of the all-purpose assignment.

12026–2026
Gonzalez v. Menard, Inc. neutral
ilnd · 2008
2 sentences

2009(See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Menard, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 2008) 534 F.Supp.2d 815, 820-821 ; Boyd v. Town of Hayneville, AL (M.D.Ala. 2001) 144 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1275-1276 .) [5] In their appellate briefs, the parties did not address whether the ruling on a peremptory challenge may be reviewed on appeal.

2009(See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Menard, Inc. (N.D.I11. 2008) 534 F.Supp.2d 815, 820-821 ; Boyd v. Town of Hayneville, AL (M.D.Ala. 2001) 144 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1275-1276 .) In their appellate briefs, the parties did not address whether the ruling on a peremptory challenge may be reviewed on appeal.

12009–2009
Boyd v. Town of Hayneville, AL green
almd · 2001
2 sentences

2009(See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Menard, Inc. (N.D.Ill. 2008) 534 F.Supp.2d 815, 820-821 ; Boyd v. Town of Hayneville, AL (M.D.Ala. 2001) 144 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1275-1276 .) [5] In their appellate briefs, the parties did not address whether the ruling on a peremptory challenge may be reviewed on appeal.

2009(See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Menard, Inc. (N.D.I11. 2008) 534 F.Supp.2d 815, 820-821 ; Boyd v. Town of Hayneville, AL (M.D.Ala. 2001) 144 F.Supp.2d 1272, 1275-1276 .) In their appellate briefs, the parties did not address whether the ruling on a peremptory challenge may be reviewed on appeal.

12009–2009

Where else courts name it

CA 5 (1987–2026) LA 5 (2006–2013)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check