Search for public court records online in the Supreme Court of California. Lookup the case information you need and search by case number, case name, party, attorney, judge, docket entry, filing date, courthouse, case type, party type, party representation, and more. Get access to the court dockets, court documents, transcripts, and legal data on the parties, attorneys, law firms, and judges involved in court cases in the California Supreme Court.
UniCourt’s case search gives you real-time access to a range of case types in California appellate courts, including Civil Right, Contract, Criminal, Family, Forfeiture, Labor, Other, Personal Injury, Probate, Property, and Small Claim. Along with streamlined access to court data, you can also get the latest court docket information, obtain case summaries, check case statuses, download court documents, view tentative rulings, and track lawsuits to get real-time alerts on new case updates.
Established in 1849, the Supreme Court of California, or alternatively the California Supreme Court, is the highest state court and court of appeal in California. The Supreme Court reviews cases that focus on issues of significant statewide pertinence. As the apex court, the California Supreme Court is the last resort on questions of California State Law. The decisions of the Supreme Court provide the lower courts with guidance in the exercise of their powers and the administration of justice, affecting the lives of California’s 40 million residents. Decisions of the Supreme Court of California are binding on all California State Courts.
The State Constitution of California gives the California Supreme Court the power and authority to review the decisions of the California Court of Appeals. As required by state law, all death penalty judgements by trial courts are automatically directly appealed to the Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court has discretionary appellate jurisdiction over cases that are reviewed by the California Court of Appeals to ensure that the law is applied uniformly across the six appellate districts. Additionally, the Court may also review decisions of the Public Utility Commission.
The Supreme Court of California has other duties as well. The Supreme Court supervises the lower courts, including the trial courts of the State of California via the Judicial Council of California and the California Commission on Judicial Performance. The Court also helps supervise those in the legal profession in California through the State Bar of California in matters concerning the suspension, removal, and misconduct of judges and attorneys.
The California Supreme Court has been headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building at Supreme Court of California, 350 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94102, since 1923. You can contact the Supreme Court of California headquarters by calling (415) 865-7000.
The California Supreme court hears oral arguments in Los Angeles three times each year, typically in April, June, and December at the Ronald Reagan State Office Building, 300 South Spring St., 3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013. In February and November, oral arguments may be heard at the Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building, 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814.
In accordance with Article VI § 2 of the California Constitution, the Supreme Court of California has one Chief Justice and six Associate Judges. These judges are appointed by the Governor, after being reviewed for gubernatorial nomination by the State Bar’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation. Appointment is confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which consists of the Chief Justice of California, the Attorney General of California, and a Senior Presiding Justice from the California Court of Appeals. To be eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court, a nominee must be a member of the State Bar of California or have been a judge in California for at least 10 years. All seven Supreme Court Justices are subject to retention elections and may serve for a term of 12 years.
The Supreme Court Clerk and Executive Officer is Jorge E. Navarrete.
The 29th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California is the Hon. Patricia Guerrero. The six Associate Justices are the Hon. Carol A. Corrigan, the Hon. Goodwin H. Liu, the Hon. Leonada R. Kruger, the Hon. Joshua P. Groban, the Hon. Martin J. Jenkins, and the Hon. Kelli Evans.
California Supreme Court Committees and Programs
Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics
The California Supreme Court is responsible for promulgating the Code of Judicial Ethics pursuant to Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 18(m). This committee makes recommendations to the court about whether any amendments to the code are required or necessary.
The current Code of Judicial Ethics was formally adopted by the Supreme Court on January 15th, 1996, and establishes standards for the ethical conduct of judges both on and off the bench.
The Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics is chaired by the Hon. Richard D. Fybel, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three. The Staff Contact for the committee is Dawn Payne, who can be reached by calling (415) 865-4287.
Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions
The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions was established to help inform the public and the judiciary about the Code of Judicial Ethics. It publishes formal advisory opinions, provides oral advice for proper judicial conduct under the California Code of Judicial Ethics, and issues confidential written opinions.
The committee accepts requests for any ethical opinions from judicial officers and also welcomes suggestions from any member of the public on matters related to judicial ethics which are of importance and interest to the community. The committee further issues judicial ethics advisory opinions and makes resources available through: the California Code of Judicial Ethics annotated with CJEO opinions, the California Code of Judicial Ethics annotated with CJP disciplinary decisions, a searchable database of all the CJEO opinions, and a newsletter.
The Office of the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions is located at the Supreme Court of California headquarters in the Earl Warren Building. You can contact the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions by calling 1-855-854-5366, emailing judicial.ethics@jud.ca.gov, or via mail at the Supreme Court of California headquarters. The Committee Counsel is Nancy A. Black and the Committee Staff Attorney is Sanna R. Singer. You can contact this committee by calling (415) 865-7169.
Jury Selection Workgroup
The purpose of this group is to study whether additions or modification measures are needed to protect against impermissible discrimination in jury selection.
This group consists of 11 judges and justices who reflect the diversity of the state’s Judicial branch. The workgroup invites comments from the public on pertinent matters concerning jury selection in the State of California.
The Chair of the Jury Selection Workgroup is the Hon. Kathleen E. O’Leary. You can reach this committee by calling 415-865-4960 or emailing kara.porthow@jud.ca.gov.
California Supreme Court Operation
The Supreme Court of California has the discretion to decide which cases should be reviewed. The court follows certain steps to determine which cases to review and how to decide on the matters.
Weekly Conference
First, a petition for review is filed with the California Supreme Court. A petition conference is then scheduled. Petition conferences are scheduled for each Wednesday, except those Wednesdays where an oral argument has been scheduled instead.
The court has 60 days from the filing of the petition for review to decide whether the case is accepted. This deadline can be extended an additional 30 days if necessary. A conference memorandum is prepared after the conference by either the Justices or the Court’s Central Staff to help the justices assess the merits of the case and decide whether to accept the petition.
After a Case is Accepted
Once a case has been accepted for review, the Chief Justice assigns the case to any of the justices that voted in favor of the petition to prepare the calendar memorandum. The calendar memorandum contains the facts, analyzes the pertinent legal issues to be addressed in the case, and recommends a disposition. This memorandum is given to all the justices.
Individually, the justices decide to accept, amend, or have a new memorandum prepared and inform the Chief Justice of their choice. Depending on their decision, the Chief Justice may set the matter for oral arguments.
Oral Argument
During oral arguments, Attorneys present their case to the court and then complete any post-argument briefs. The Supreme Court is required to issue a written decision for any case it has decided to review within 90 days submission.
After Oral Argument
After oral arguments, the Supreme Court Justices hold a conference. The justices vote on how to decide the case, and the justice assigned to write the majority opinion prepares and circulates the majority opinion for voting. The majority opinion is individually reviewed by each of the justices and each justice is given time to write a concurring opinion or a dissenting opinion.
Final Step
After the justices have reached a conclusion, a “notice of forthcoming” is filed with the Clerk’s Office. This notice announces the date for which the written opinion of the court will be filed.
Generally, the Supreme Court files opinions on Mondays and Thursdays at 10 a.m. every week. At that time, the decisions are stamped as filed and are made public on both the court’s website and in the Clerk’s Office. After 30 days, the decision is deemed final.
The Supreme Court of California’s opinions are binding on all the California Superior, Appellate, and Trial courts. These opinions are collected in a bound volume called the Official California Reports for reference.
UniCourt is your single source for state and federal court records, offering comprehensive court coverage and the most complete and accurate dataset available.
Everyday of the week, UniCourt collects all of the newly filed civil and criminal cases in the California Supreme Court and lets you search through those new case filings in our CrowdSourced Library™. You can also use UniCourt to track state court litigation and get real-time case alerts sent directly to your inbox. Additionally, UniCourt empowers you to download court documents on-demand without ever having to login to a government court database, and gives you unlimited access to download millions of free state and federal court documents in our CrowdSourced Library™.
In addition to the Supreme Court of California, UniCourt provides you with access to many state courts across California, including many of the largest counties across the state, such as the Los Angeles County Superior Courts, the San Diego County Superior Courts, the Orange County Superior Courts, the Riverside County Superior Courts, and San Bernardino County Superior Courts.
UniCourt also gives you access to court records for all of the federal courts across the state of California.
U.S. District Courts
U.S. Bankruptcy Courts
U.S. Court of Appeals
UniCourt’s industry-leading Legal Data APIs provide Enterprise users with on-demand, bulk access to structured data from California state and federal courts. Our Legal Data as a Service (LDaaS) collects, organizes, standardizes, and normalizes court data from California state courts and all federal courts, and makes it readily available via our UniCourt Enterprise API for business development, competitive intelligence, litigation strategy, and docket management.
DOCKET
07/01/2014
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR COURT
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
05/13/2014
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/29/2013
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR COURT
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/07/2013
DESCRIPTION: NOTE: MAIL RETURNED (UNABLE TO FORWARD)
[-] Read LessDOCKET
12/16/2008
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
11/14/2008
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
10/14/2020
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/14/2020
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED; NOTES: THE COURT ORDERS THAT RICHARD WILLIAM STAMP (RESPONDENT), STATE BAR NUMBER 208490, IS SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN CALIFORNIA FOR FOUR YEARS, EXECUTION OF THAT PERIOD OF SUSPENSION IS STAYED, AND RESPONDENT IS PLACED ON PROBATION FOR FOUR YEARS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. RESPONDENT IS SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR A MINIMUM OF THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF PROBATION (WITH CREDIT GIVEN FOR THE PERIOD OF INTERIM SUSPENSION WHICH COMMENCED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2019), AND RESPONDENT WILL REMAIN SUSPENDED UNTIL PROVIDING PROOF TO THE STATE BAR COURT OF REHABILITATION, FITNESS TO PRACTICE AND PRESENT LEARNING AND ABILITY IN THE GENERAL LAW. (RULES PROC. OF STATE BAR, TIT. IV, STDS. FOR ATTY. SANCTIONS FOR PROF. MISCONDUCT, STD. 1.2(C)(1).) 2. RESPONDENT MUST COMPLY WITH THE OTHER CONDITIONS OF PROBATION RECOMMENDED BY THE HEARING DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE BAR COURT IN ITS ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FILED ON JULY 17, 2020. 3. AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF PROBATION, IF RESPONDENT HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF PROBATION, THE PERIOD OF STAYED SUSPENSION WILL BE SATISFIED AND THAT SUSPENSION WILL BE TERMINATED. RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE TO THE STATE BAR'S OFFICE OF PROBATION PROOF OF TAKING AND PASSING THE MULTISTATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY EXAMINATION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE HEARING DEPARTMENT IN ITS ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FILED ON JULY 17, 2020. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION. (CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULE 9.10(B).) RESPONDENT MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 9.20, AND PERFORM THE ACTS SPECIFIED IN SUBDIVISIONS (A) AND (C) OF THAT RULE WITHIN 30 AND 40 CALENDAR DAYS, RESPECTIVELY, AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDER. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION. RESPONDENT MUST ALSO MAINTAIN THE RECORDS OF COMPLIANCE AS REQUIRED BY THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION. COSTS ARE AWARDED TO THE STATE BAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10 AND ARE ENFORCEABLE BOTH AS PROVIDED IN BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6140.7 AND AS A MONEY JUDGMENT.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
01/09/2018
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, ONE VOLUME
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
12/13/2017
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
04/15/2014
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR COURT
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
02/27/2014
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
04/07/2021
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
02/24/2021
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
03/04/2020
DESCRIPTION: DISBARMENT ORDERED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
03/04/2020
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED: DISBARRED; NOTES: THE COURT ORDERS THAT WAYNE ALBERT BOATWRIGHT (RESPONDENT), STATE BAR NUMBER 150972, IS DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN CALIFORNIA AND THAT RESPONDENT'S NAME IS STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. RESPONDENT MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 9.20, AND PERFORM THE ACTS SPECIFIED IN SUBDIVISIONS (A) AND (C) OF THAT RULE WITHIN 30 AND 40 CALENDAR DAYS, RESPECTIVELY, AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDER. COSTS ARE AWARDED TO THE STATE BAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10 AND ARE ENFORCEABLE BOTH AS PROVIDED IN BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6140.7 AND AS A MONEY JUDGMENT.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/05/2017
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, ONE VOLUME
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
08/22/2017
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
01/13/2022
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
11/22/2021
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
02/17/2023
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO THE STATE BAR COURT
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
01/18/2023
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
12/24/2014
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: SIX VOLUMES RETURNED TO THE STATE BAR COURT.
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
11/20/2014
DESCRIPTION: DISBARMENT ORDERED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/03/2012
DESCRIPTION: NOTE: MAIL RETURNED AND RE-SENT; NOTES: COPY OF 8/21/2012 ORDER RESENT TO PETITIONER
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/24/2012
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: STATE BAR COURT
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/28/2021
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
06/14/2021
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/30/2016
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, ONE VOLUME
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
04/29/2016
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
08/05/2022
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
06/23/2022
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/13/2016
DESCRIPTION: NOTE: MAIL RETURNED (UNABLE TO FORWARD)
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/12/2016
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, ONE VOLUME
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
07/27/2023
DESCRIPTION: DISBARMENT ORDERED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/27/2023
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED: DISBARRED; NOTES: THE COURT ORDERS THAT MARGARITA SALAZAR (RESPONDENT), STATE BAR NUMBER 224649, IS DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW AND THAT RESPONDENT'S NAME IS STRICKEN FROM THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. RESPONDENT MUST MAKE RESTITUTION TO THE FOLLOWING PAYEES OR SUCH OTHER RECIPIENT AS MAY BE DESIGNATED BY THE OFFICE OF PROBATION OR THE STATE BAR COURT (OR REIMBURSE THE CLIENT SECURITY FUND, TO THE EXTENT OF ANY PAYMENT FROM THE FUND TO SUCH PAYEES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6140.5). REIMBURSEMENT TO THE FUND IS ENFORCEABLE AS A MONEY JUDGMENT AND MAY BE COLLECTED BY THE STATE BAR THROUGH ANY MEANS PERMITTED BY LAW: (1) PATRICIA RODRIGUEZ IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,662.42 PLUS 10 PERCENT INTEREST PER YEAR FROM NOVEMBER 18, 2019; (2) VIVERA PHARMACEUTICALS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,400 PLUS 10 PERCENT INTEREST PER YEAR FROM JULY 23, 2021; AND (3) THE SULLIVAN GROUP OF COURT REPORTERS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,128.21 PLUS 10 PERCENT INTEREST PER YEAR FROM MARCH 5, 2019. RESPONDENT MUST COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 9.20, AND PERFORM THE ACTS SPECIFIED IN SUBDIVISIONS (A) AND (C) OF THAT RULE WITHIN 30 AND 40 CALENDAR DAYS, RESPECTIVELY, AFTER THE DATE THIS ORDER IS FILED. (ATHEARN V. STATE BAR (1982) 32 CAL.3D 38, 45 [THE OPERATIVE DATE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENTS BEING REPRESENTED IN PENDING MATTERS AND OTHERS TO BE NOTIFIED IS THE FILING DATE OF THIS ORDER].) RESPONDENT MUST PAY MONETARY SANCTIONS TO THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CLIENT SECURITY FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.13 AND RULE 5.137 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE STATE BAR. MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE ENFORCEABLE AS A MONEY JUDGMENT AND MAY BE COLLECTED BY THE STATE BAR THROUGH ANY MEANS PERMITTED BY LAW. COSTS ARE AWARDED TO THE STATE BAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10 AND ARE ENFORCEABLE BOTH AS PROVIDED IN BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6140.7 AND AS A MONEY JUDGMENT, AND MAY BE COLLECTED BY THE STATE BAR THROUGH ANY MEANS PERMITTED BY LAW.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/12/2022
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
03/24/2022
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/05/2012
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR COURT
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
08/29/2012
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/31/2018
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
09/27/2018
DESCRIPTION: DISBARMENT ORDERED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/22/2014
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR COURT
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
03/24/2014
DESCRIPTION: DISBARMENT ORDERED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/02/2008
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO STATE BAR
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
08/27/2008
DESCRIPTION: RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IMPOSED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/12/2023
DESCRIPTION: RECEIVED COURT OF APPEAL RECORD; NOTES: COURT OF APPEAL RECORD IMPORTED AND AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/12/2023
DESCRIPTION: RECORD REQUESTED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
07/12/2000
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/12/2000
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/23/2016
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 FILE JACKET
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
09/14/2016
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
12/15/2022
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: ONE FILE JACKET
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
12/14/2022
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
07/12/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/12/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
07/14/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/14/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
08/21/2020
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 DOGHOUSE
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
08/19/2020
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/25/2016
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 DOGHOUSE
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
07/20/2016
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
06/30/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION AND STAY DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/30/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW & APPLICATION FOR STAY DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
03/21/2016
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 DOGHOUSE, 1 BOX
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
03/16/2016
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
01/23/2019
DESCRIPTION: PETITION DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
01/23/2019
DESCRIPTION: PETITION DENIED (ACCUSATION)
[-] Read LessDOCKET
02/16/2023
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: PETITION FOR REVIEW
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
02/15/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
11/06/2015
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 DOGHOUSE
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
10/28/2015
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
06/14/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION AND PUB. REQUEST(S) DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/14/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW & PUBLICATION REQUEST(S) DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/01/2022
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: ONE BOX
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
08/31/2022
DESCRIPTION: PETITION AND DEPUB. REQUEST(S) DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
07/30/2003
DESCRIPTION: PETITION AND STAY DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/30/2003
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW AND APPLICATION FOR STAY DENIED; NOTES: GEORGE, C.J. AND BROWN, J., WERE ABSENT AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/15/2014
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 DOGHOUSE
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
07/09/2014
DESCRIPTION: PETITION DENIED; CA OPINION DECERTIFIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
06/28/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION AND STAY DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/28/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW & APPLICATION FOR STAY DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
10/16/2002
DESCRIPTION: PUBLICATION REQUEST DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/16/2002
DESCRIPTION: PUBLICATION REQUEST DENIED (CASE CLOSED)
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/14/2023
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 FILE JACKET
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
09/13/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
02/04/2014
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: PETITION FOR REVIEW
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
01/29/2014
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
09/28/2022
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/28/2022
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
12/20/2011
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 DOGHOUSE
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
12/14/2011
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
10/20/1999
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/20/1999
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
02/09/2022
DESCRIPTION: GRANTED & TRANSFERRED TO CA 2/1
[-] Read LessDOCKET
02/09/2022
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: TO 2DCA1, PETITION FOR REVIEW (5).
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
03/01/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
03/01/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
06/14/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/14/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
04/14/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
04/14/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/05/2023
DESCRIPTION: CASE START DATE (PUBLICATION REQUEST)
[-] Read LessDOCKET
08/14/2023
DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION FILED (INITIAL CASE ENTRY); NOTES: PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT: KIMBERLY K. HIGGINS ATTORNEY: JOHN P. MCNICHOLAS *** THE COURT OF APPEAL, 2ND APPELLATE DISTRICT RECOMMENDS THE OPINION NOT BE PUBLISHED ON THE GROUND IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF PUBLICATION. ***
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
04/19/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
04/19/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
06/28/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/28/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
09/15/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/15/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
02/09/2022
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; BRIEFING DEFERRED; NOTES: THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED. FURTHER ACTION IN THIS MATTER IS DEFERRED PENDING CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF A RELATED ISSUE IN PEOPLE V. PRUDHOLME, S271057 (SEE CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.512(D)(2)), OR PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL BRIEFING, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.520, IS DEFERRED PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. VOTES: CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J., CORRIGAN, LIU, KRUGER, GROBAN, AND JENKINS, JJ.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
12/28/2021
DESCRIPTION: RECORD REQUESTED; NOTES: COURT OF APPEAL RECORD IMPORTED AND AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
03/15/2023
DESCRIPTION: RESIGNATION ACCEPTED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
03/15/2023
DESCRIPTION: VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION ACCEPTED; NOTES: THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION OF VALINDA GAY KYRIAS, STATE BAR NUMBER 272514, AS AN ATTORNEY OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA IS ACCEPTED.
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
09/09/2020
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/09/2020
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
05/22/2013
DESCRIPTION: PUBLICATION REQUEST DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/22/2013
DESCRIPTION: PUBLICATION REQUEST DENIED (CASE CLOSED)
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/19/2008
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 FILE JACKET, BRIEFS, APPENDICES, TRANSCRIPTS.
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
05/14/2008
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/12/2017
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 FILE FOLDER, BRIEFS
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
05/10/2017
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
09/14/2022
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/14/2022
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
12/18/2020
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 4 DOGHOUSES (VOLUMES 1 - 4)
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
12/16/2020
DESCRIPTION: PETITION DENIED; CA OPINION DECERTIFIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
11/02/2022
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
08/25/2022
DESCRIPTION: RESIGNATION ACCEPTED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
02/10/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
02/10/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; NOTES: CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J., WAS RECUSED AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
01/27/2010
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 ACCORDION FOLDER, 2 SEALED ENVELOPE, WRITS
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
09/02/2009
DESCRIPTION: PETITION AND STAY DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
08/21/2019
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; BRIEFING DEFERRED; NOTES: THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED. FURTHER ACTION IN THIS MATTER IS DEFERRED PENDING CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF A RELATED ISSUE IN MOLINA V. SUPERIOR COURT, S256394 (SEE CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.512(D)(2)), OR PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL BRIEFING, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.520, IS DEFERRED PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. VOTES: CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J., CHIN, CORRIGAN, LIU, CULLAR, KRUGER AND GROBAN, JJ.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
08/15/2019
DESCRIPTION: TIME EXTENDED TO GRANT OR DENY REVIEW; NOTES: THE TIME FOR GRANTING OR DENYING REVIEW IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER IS HEREBY EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 18, 2019, OR THE DATE UPON WHICH REVIEW IS EITHER GRANTED OR DENIED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
01/21/2022
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 FILE JACKET
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
01/19/2022
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
01/20/2021
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; BRIEFING DEFERRED; NOTES: THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED. FURTHER ACTION IN THIS MATTER IS DEFERRED PENDING CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF RELATED ISSUES IN PEOPLE V. LOPEZ, S258175 AND PEOPLE V. LEWIS, S260598 (SEE CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.512(D)(2)), OR PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL BRIEFING, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 8.520, IS DEFERRED PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. VOTES: CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J., CORRIGAN, LIU, CULLAR, KRUGER, GROBAN AND JENKINS, JJ.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
12/15/2020
DESCRIPTION: RECORD REQUESTED; NOTES: COURT OF APPEAL RECORD HAS BEEN IMPORTED AND IS AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT.
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
05/31/2023
DESCRIPTION: MANDATE/PROHIBITION PETITION DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
05/31/2023
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/PROHIBITION DENIED; NOTES: THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE IS DENIED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
09/20/2010
DESCRIPTION: RETURNED RECORD; NOTES: 1 FILE JACKET, BRIEFS, 1 ACCORDION FOLDER
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
09/15/2010
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/21/2022
DESCRIPTION: NOTE: MAIL RETURNED (UNABLE TO FORWARD); NOTES: NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, UNABLE TO FORWARD.
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
06/29/2022
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
10/28/2015
DESCRIPTION: GRANTED & TRANSFERRED TO CA 2/8
[-] Read LessDOCKET
10/28/2015
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; TRANSFERRED TO CA 2/8 WITH DIRECTIONS TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; NOTES: THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED. THE MATTER IS TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION EIGHT, WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE ITS ORDER DENYING MANDATE AND ISSUE AN ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. VOTES: CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C.J., WERDEGAR, CHIN, CORRIGAN, LIU, CULLAR AND KRUGER, JJ.
[-] Read LessDISPOSITION
07/21/2021
DESCRIPTION: PUBLICATION REQUEST DENIED
[-] Read LessDOCKET
07/21/2021
DESCRIPTION: PUBLICATION REQUEST DENIED (CASE CLOSED); NOTES: THE REQUEST FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF THE OPINION IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED APPEAL IS DENIED.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/04/2020
DESCRIPTION: RECORD REQUESTED; NOTES: COURT OF APPEAL RECORD IMPORTED AND AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY.
[-] Read LessDOCKET
06/04/2020
DESCRIPTION: PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED; NOTES: DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT: T-MOBILE USA, INC. ATTORNEY: PAUL W. CANE
[-] Read Less