supplemental or continued hearing (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

supplemental or continued hearing in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1962–2015 0 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Stafford v. Russellgreen
calctapp · 1962 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1968
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

22
People v. Paramount Citrus Assn.green
calctapp · 1960 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1968
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

22
Dennis v. Overholtzergreen
calctapp · 1960 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1963–1968
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

12
Robinson v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1960 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

11
McClenny v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1964 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

11
Ball v. City Council of Coachellagreen
calctapp · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

11
Swartzman v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1964 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

11
People v. Kellergreen
calctapp · 1966 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

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
Oak Grove School District v. City Title Insurance green
calctapp · 1963
2 sentences

2015Company (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 699 .) The expiration of Judge Murphy’s term and its renewal do not undermine the conclusion that the current proceedings are a continuation of the proceedings in 2010.

2009In Oak Grove, the court held that a motion to tax costs in an abandoned eminent domain proceeding was “a part and a continuation of the original eminent domain proceedings, within the meaning of the rule laid down in [Jacobs] . . . .” (Oak Grove, supra, 217 Cal.App.2d at p. 699 .) As Oak Grove observed: “The essence of the rule stated in Jacobs is that in a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of the same judge who heard the original proceeding is not proper or timely . . . .” (Ibid., italics ad

22009–2015
Thompson v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1962
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

11968–1968
Michaels v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1960
2 sentences

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

1968Such procedure would make it possible for litigants to gamble on obtaining a favorable decision from one judge, and then, if confronted with an adverse judgment, allow them to disqualify him without presenting facts showing prejudice, in the hope of securing a different ruling from another judge in supplementary proceedings involving substantially the same issues. ’ ’ In Stafford v. Russell, 201 Cal.App.2d 719, 721 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 112 ], it is said: “In a supplemental or continued hearing on matters involved in the original proceeding, an application under section 170.6 for disqualification of

11968–1968
Jacobs v. Superior Court green
cal · 1959
2 sentences

1962In Jacobs v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 187 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 9 , 347 P.2d 9 ], the court states the rule (p. 191): “If a disqualification were permitted under section 170.6 in matters which are continuations of a prior proceeding, it would mean that the judge who tried the case, and who is ordinarily in the best position to pass upon the questions involved, could by a mere general allegation of prejudice, and without any judicial determination of the facts, be disqualified from hearing such matters as motions for modification of a support order or an injunction, as well as motions for change of cu

1962In Jacobs v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 187 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 9 , 347 P.2d 9 ], the court states the rule (p. 191): “If a disqualification were permitted under section 170.6 in matters which are continuations of a prior proceeding, it would mean that the judge who tried the case, and who is ordinarily in the best position to pass upon the questions involved, could by a mere general allegation of prejudice, and without any judicial determination of the facts, be disqualified from hearing such matters as motions for modification of a support order or an injunction, as well as motions for change of cu

11962–1962

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check