Search results

SAN FRANCISCO—At its public meeting on July 29, the Judicial Council approved funding allocations for general court operations and specific costs of the trial courts for fiscal year 2016-17.

At its July 27-28 business meeting, the Judicial Council approved changes to the way it determines how the state’s 58 trial courts are funded.

While the model has helped equalize funding gaps across counties, chronic underfunding of the judicial branch has complicated its rollout.

A judge can only be reimbursed for expenses incurred during official duties under policies, procedures, and rates approved by the Judicial Council.

The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) has adopted a formal advisory opinion providing guidance to judges and judicial candidates to assist them in determining the types of activities they may engage in...

Starting Monday, March 2, North County residents will no longer be required to drive to downtown San Diego to file their probate matters.

A California Supreme Court ethics committee invites public comment on a draft opinion which advises that a judge generally cannot use the court’s case management system to search for information on a party, attorney, or facts relevant to the case before the judge.

The Judicial Council at its January 12 business meeting will consider recommendations on how it divides annual state funding for the judicial branch among each of the state’s 58 trial courts.

SAN FRANCISCO—The California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) has adopted a formal advisory opinion advising judges against serving on a charter school board.

Deadline to comment is Nov. 17.

Funding used for remote video, online services, and expanding self-help also helped limit the service impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on court users