This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The Supreme Court today announced it would hear arguments in seven cases at its next calendar, the second of two calendars in May. This will be a heavier calendar than the court has had in a while. Like all calendars since April 2020 , the late-May 2022 calendar will be remote and based in San Francisco.
The Supreme Court has announced a seven-case late-May calendar. Like all calendars since April 2020 , and for the foreseeable future, May’s arguments will be remote and based in San Francisco. (See May is the only month with two oral argument sessions. See here , here , here , and here.) The court granted review in March 2020.
The Supreme Court hasn’t been holding many oral arguments this term: only 23 cases have been heard or scheduled through the court’s recently announced March calendar , which will be its seventh of 2024–2025. Horvitz & Levy is co-counsel for amicus UC Irvine law schools Consumer Law Clinic.) More about the case here.
The Supreme Court has announced a four-case February calendar. Did the Court of Appeal err in ruling that the trial court adequately exercised its discretion to determine whether the juvenile’s offenses were felonies or misdemeanors as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 and In re Manzy W. In re F.M. :
The 2018 legislation limited criminal liability for felony murder, eliminated it for murder under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, and allowed possible resentencing for those convicted under pre-SB 1437 law. ” Two votes for review in Three-Strikes resentencing case. Another discovery sanctions grant-and-hold.
Jacobson’s lawsuit asserted defamation, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel claims. He had been convicted of misdemeanor trespass and felony criminal mischief and conspiracy to commit criminal mischief in October 2017. CBAF reported that the second activist was sentenced to two years in prison, with both years deferred.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content