Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > The Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch Topics and information of interest to SOS associates in relation to courts, law, and justice

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-11-2011, 06:06 AM
Ayatollahgondola's Avatar
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
SOS Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,057
Default Sac Court Overrules Governors Demurer On Nunez Commutation Lawsuit

It's probably a little confusing, but in a nutshell, the family of the slain Santos boy sued Arnold the governor at the time for not following the terms of a law enacted to protect victims of crimes. The state demured trying to get some of their causes of action tossed out, basically crippling their case. The court overruled Arnolds demurer, and the Santos family can go forth with their claim. Unfortunately they may win the suit, but arnold will not have to pay them. The taxpayers will. It's unclear on whether the family can get the commutation overturned. Maybe not.

Quote:
Judicial Notice
Defendants’ unopposed Request for Judicial Notice of the Commutation of Esteban
Nunez, both the “Title and Summary” and the “Analysis by Legislative the Analyst” of
Proposition 9, the Ballot Pamphlet arguments in favor of and against Proposition 9,
and the text of Proposition 9, is GRANTED. (Cal. Evid. Code sec. 451(a), (f); id. sec.
452(a), (c), (h); id. sec. 453.) Plaintiffs’ unopposed Request for Judicial Notice of the
text of Proposition 9, the complaint in Dumanis et al. v. State of California et al., San
Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-00091104-CU-WM-CTL, the
Commutation of Esteban Nunez, and the State of California’s form Application for
Clemency, is likewise GRANTED. (Cal. Evid. Code sec. 451(a), (f); id. sec. 452(a), (c),
(h); id. sec. 453.) In taking judicial notice of official documents, or of pleadings in
another court case, the Court does not accept the truth of the documents’ contents.
(See Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 [public
records and official acts], overruled in part on another ground by In re Tobacco Cases
II (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1257; Bach v. McNelis (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 852, 865 [court
records].)
Conclusion
The demurrer to the first cause of action for declaratory relief is OVERRULED.
Defendants have not shown that the first cause of action in the complaint does not
state a controversy within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1060.
Because the second cause of action for injunctive relief rises and falls with the
declaratory relief cause of action, the demurrer to the second cause of action is
OVERRULED as well.
As the demurrer to the complaint is overruled, defendants shall file and serve their
answer by July 25, 2011.

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola; 07-11-2011 at 06:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-11-2011, 11:03 AM
REWHBLCAIN's Avatar
REWHBLCAIN REWHBLCAIN is offline
Archer
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ma
Posts: 451
Default

And the tax payers have no money left in the till.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved