Search results

As the Chief Justice prepares to address the Legislature on the 2019 State of the Judiciary, a look back at some key judicial branch milestones.

A state Supreme Court committee issued an advisory opinion explaining when a judge may accept campaign contributions from a political action committee when the contribution includes funds from another political action committee organized and funded by court employees.

Supreme Court committee issues expedited guidance about a judge serving as a member of a governmental task force with a broad agenda.

Council also approves expansion of an online pilot program enabling low-income litigants to request reductions in traffic infraction fines and fees remotely

The Judicial Council has revised rules of court and forms to help implement a statute that expands the use of expedited jury trials in California, effective July 1.

Can a presiding judge disqualify an entire bench? The answer is a decisive “no”, according to the Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions, the ethical rule is that no judge may decide if another judge is disqualified. But they also gave...

A California Supreme Court committee today published guidance for judges who want to attend public demonstrations and rallies, citing a slate of ethical issues for judges to consider before participating.

The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) this month posted a summary of oral advice stating appellate justices should disqualify themselves from a case if they were removed by peremptory challenge while hearing the case as a trial judge.

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

Facing growing numbers of civil and family law litigants representing themselves, courts are expanding services offered through “self-help” centers.

Oral advice issued to a presiding justice seeking to solicit campaign endorsements on behalf of other justices facing retention elections.

The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) advised that an appellate court justice cannot contact a superior court presiding judge regarding misconduct by a superior court research attorney related to a pending appellate matter.