It found that the earlier denial "was clearly on the merits," and thus came within the exception.
As the Cannon court declared: The trial court denied the motion to specially set, and in the hearing stated two separate grounds. Weitzman 1988 203 Cal. The burden is on the party challenging the trial court's decision to show that the court abused its discretion.
In this respect, we believe Pigeon Point has more often disrupted than promoted the 'orderly administration of justice.1981 Calendar
The Court, however, has recognized that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability, Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U. We reversed the Court of Appeal, finding for two independent reasons that the statute had not expired. State, 49 Ala. We are now presented with a greatly different question from that presented on original submission.
I charge you Ladies and Gentlemen.... A judge's direction to court officers to bring a person who is in the courthouse before him is a function normally performed by a judge. We further hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to specially set and in dismissing the action on discretionary grounds under section 583.
But it is not required to do so by the law of the case doctrine. Defendant appealed. Answer to petition for review filed By Resp Maryland Casualty. But it is the plaintiff's task, rather than that of the court, to keep track of pertinent dates, and to inform the court of these.
In its October 3, 1991, arbitration status conference report, plaintiff correctly indicated that neither side had requested a trial de novo. But I cannot join the majority in unnecessarily reaching out to overrule a decision of this court that has been the prevailing law for almost 30 years.
See also Supreme Court of Virginia v.
The question we explore is-when does the doctrine apply to pretrial writ proceedings? Grizzly Lawn Care and Landscape.
Collier 1975 49 Cal. We also find, however, that the trial court in this case erred in calculating the expiration of the five-year period and therefore erroneously dismissed the case on mandatory grounds. Jones 1989 215 Cal. We then granted a hearing.