
ALM Properties, Inc.
Page printed from: The Recorder
Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.
California Supreme Court Grants_0418122012-06-20 12:00:00 AM CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7177 No. S141210 The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is ordered to show cause in this court, when the matter is placed on calendar, why the relief prayed for should not be granted on the ground of juror misconduct, as alleged in Claim 2 of the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed February 17,2006, and amended on January 10, 2008. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7178 No. S176213 The parties are requested to serve and file supplemental briefs addressing the significance, if any, of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Williams v. Illinois (June 18, 2012) _ U.S. _ [2012 WL 2202981]. Those briefs are to be filed on or before July 5, 2012. Upon the filing of those briefs , each party will then have until July 16, 2012, to serve and file a response to the brief submitted by the opposing party. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7178 No. S177046 The parties are requested to serve and file supplemental briefs addressing the significance, if any, of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Williams v. Illinois (June 18, 2012) _ U.S. _ [2012 WL 2202981]. Those briefs are to be filed on or before July 5, 2012. Upon the filing of those briefs, each party will then have until July 16, 2012, to serve and file a response to the brief submitted by the opposing party. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7179 No. S176886 The parties are requested to serve and file supplemental briefs addressing the significance, if any, of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Williams v. Illinois (June 18, 2012) _ U.S __ [2012 WL 2202981] Those briefs are to be filed on or before July 5, 20 12. Upon the filing of those briefs, each party will then have until July 16,2012, to serve and file a response to the brief submitted by the opposing party. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7179 THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. No. S202324 On June 13,2012, the court granted the petition s for review in Reilly v. Superior Court (3202280), Boysel v. Superior Court (3202324), and Wright v. Superior Court (S202 320). At this time, the court designates Reilly the lead case and defers further action in Boysel and Wright pending consideration and disposition of related issues in Reilly or pending further order of the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2).) CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7180 No. S199642 The matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two, for reconsideration in light of Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (20 12) 53 Cal.4th 1244. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7180 No. S197722 In light of Kirby v. lmmoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, review in the above-entitled matter is dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.528( b)( J).) CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7181 THOMAS McGANN, Plaintiff and Appellant, No. S201681 In light of Kirby v. lmmoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, review in the above-entitled matter is dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.528 (b)(1).) CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7181 No. S198438 In light of Kirby v. lmmoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244, review in the above-entitled matter is dismissed. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.528(b)(1).) CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7182 No. S197806 The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (20 12) 53 Cal.4th 1004. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7182 The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 CaI.4th 1004. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7183 No. S188755 The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7183 No. S195866 The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7184 No. S178748 The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Ca1.4th 1004. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7184 No. The cause is transferre d to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Divis ion Eight, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1004. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7185 No. S186357 The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal. Second Appellate District, Division Seven, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Ca lAth 1004. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7185 No. S200557 The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) S3 Cal.4th 1004 . CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,
Cite as 12 C.D.O.S. 7186 No. S168806 The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, with directions to vacate its decision and to reconsider the ca use in light of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Ca l.4th J 004 . CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J., KENNARD, J., |