Recently in Court Rules Category

As much as we hate, fear, and loathe California’s red light cameras, we have accepted that they are a part of our life.

But while we twiddle our thumbs and wait for an anti-camera activist to underwrite a ballot initiative banning the bane of our existence -- like this couple in Houston did -- some people are waging a war against red light cameras in California’s courts.

This week, Carmen Goldsmith sadly lost her traffic appeal in the Second Appellate District after the court ruled that red light cameras images are not hearsay evidence.

If you've ever filed your own petition or motion, you know the cardinal rule of courthouse decorum: Don't irk the clerk.

The court clerk's office is a fountain of information, and particularly helpful to neophyte attorneys who are learning to navigate the logistics of lawyering, but clerks are still human. They make mistakes. And Sixth Appellate District Court judges will scold clerks, just as they do attorneys, when those mistakes interfere with a case.

Last week, we told you about a default judgment appeal in which California’s Fourth Appellate District ruled that a plaintiff isn’t guaranteed a win simply because he filed an unopposed motion for default judgment.

In the opinion, the court spent a bit of time explaining that, even when faced with silent opposition, the plaintiff must offer facts to support the specific judgment he is seeking.

But the plaintiff wasn’t the only one who received a lesson in civil procedure; the Fourth Appellate District had words of wisdom for the trial court as well.

The holidays are a time of giving. This week, California's Fourth Appellate District Court was truly in the giving spirit as it handed out tips to attorneys for ways to avoid attorney sanctions for sloppy lawyering.

In fact, the appellate court had so many words of wisdom for attorneys and judges alike in this case of three cautionary tales, that we've decided divvy up the fun for you over the next few days.

The first lucky advisees? Plaintiffs' attorneys.

We've discussed how to get your case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in a different blog, but what about having your case heard by the California Supreme Court? Are the strategies any different?

California Lawyer Magazine has an informative article on the topic of securing high-court review in California. You see, it's not that easy to have the California Supreme Court hear your case. As such, you really need to have your game-face on and make the best pitch.

Breaking News: Former judge Vaughn Walker did not need to recuse himself from hearing the Prop 8 same-sex marriage case. This ruling came in earlier today by federal judge James Ware, writes The Wall Street Journal.

If you're unfamiliar with the Vaughn Walker case, you're likely asking yourself why he needed to recuse himself.

The answer to that is very simple for Prop 8 supporters: Because he's gay.

The courtroom is a place of judgment, so every part of a litigator's knowledge is important. While the merits of an argument and a strong understanding of the procedural rules are crucial in winning a case, never underestimate the value of your image as an attorney. Attorneys, particularly those appearing in court, should know the how to manipulate fashion to their advantage.

If you run a Google search on "what to wear to court," you'll undoubtedly come across many articles talking about courtroom attire for litigants; discussing the impact that attire can have on how the judge and jury perceive the litigants, both parties and witnesses. In fact, there have even been studies outlining the idea that jurors grant favorable sentences to more attractive people. A Cornell University study examined this idea, pointing out that many jurors process information intuitively and as such, will take into account the appearance of the defendants.

But what about the attorneys? As much as many want to deny it, the truth is that attire and image matter -- especially in court.