Newslinks for 4-16-19

Discipline Rare For State Judges In Sexual Misconduct Cases

April 15, 2019 | Law360
(Subscription required) Since the vast majority of states don’t release data on sexual harassment claims against judges, the issue is nearly impossible to track on the front end. In some states, the only way to find out about such claims is after a commission has made a recommendation for public discipline with the supreme court.

88,000 people in SF who lost driver's licenses may get them back

April 16, 2019 | San Francisco Chronicle
On Tuesday, city officials are expected to announce that San Francisco Superior Court has lifted suspensions for 88,000 people who had their licenses revoked for failing to appear in court to address traffic tickets.

Superior Court Honors Prop. 36 Treatment Court Graduates

April 16, 2019 | NoozHawk
In Santa Barbara County’s Prop. 36 program, defendants are sentenced to a minimum six months of intensive treatment, probation supervision, and multiple court reviews. The program promotes sobriety, recovery and stability. Successful completion may result in dismissal of charges and early termination of probation.

Riverside County sheriff's union drops effort to try to block release of misconduct records

April 15, 2019 | Desert Sun
At a hearing Monday, Robert Rabe, the attorney representing the Riverside Sheriff's Association, told Riverside County Superior Court Judge Chad Firetag that the union was abandoning a lawsuit that argued a new California law requiring police departments to make officer misconduct records public did not apply to records from before the law's enactment on Jan. 1.

CJP Has No Duty to Divulge Status of Complaint

April 15, 2019 | Metropolitan News-Enterprise
The Court of Appeal has affirmed a judgment dismissing the action by a woman against the Commission on Judicial Performance for not letting her know what’s being done in response to her complaint against an Orange Superior Court judge.

U.S. Supreme Court seems likely to rule against Calif. oil workers

April 16, 2019 | Associated Press
The question for the high court has to do with the law that should apply in the case: federal law, which wouldn't require drilling platform workers to be paid for non-working time spent at their work location, or the more generous California law, which would. The case is relevant to workers on approximately two dozen oil platforms off California's coast.
Loading...
Supreme Court Webcast Archive

California Courts on Twitter

Site Map | Careers | Contact Us | Accessibility | Public Access to Records | Terms of Use | Privacy