Is it necessary or required that the rule of Adams v. Murakami is not constitutionally required?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Chavez v. Keat, 34 Cal.App.4th 1406, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 (Cal. App. 1995):
Keat's second contention--that, even if not constitutionally required, the rule of Adams v. Murakami is a procedural rule which a California trial court is bound to apply when determining the plaintiffs' rights under federal substantive law--is also incorrect.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does the placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the current state of the law in Ontario regarding the new requirements of Adams v. Murakami? (California, United States of America)
Does the Attorney General argue that appellant's requirement to register under section 290.005 constitute an unauthorized sentence? (California, United States of America)
Does a custodial interrogation during an interview with a police officer constitute a constitutional violation? (California, United States of America)
Is the requirement of unanimity in criminal cases constitutional? (California, United States of America)
Does a requirement that a defendant must register as a sex offender constitute punishment for purposes of ex post facto analysis? (California, United States of America)
Does the exclusion of evidence in a civil case constitute a constitutional violation? (California, United States of America)
Is a Local Rule that seeks to relax statutory requirements in section 664.6.4 of the California Constitution valid? (California, United States of America)
Does the erroneous admission into evidence of an involuntary confession constitute a federal constitutional error? (California, United States of America)
