This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Appellate Practice

Feb. 6, 2010

'Suggestive Palma' Notice, Dilemma Resolved

Hall Marston of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold discusses the quandary facing appellate lawyers when in receipt of a writ petition.

By Hall Marston

To the uninitiated, a "suggestive Palma notice" may sound like the title of the latest racy telenovelas. But to the California appellate practitioner, a "suggestive Palma notice" marks the boundary between the authority of a court of original jurisdiction and a court of review, laced liberally with notions of due process. On Feb. 1, 2010, the California Supreme Court, by a 4 to 3 vote, Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superi...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up