Talk:California superior courts

Fair use rationale for File:Superior Court of California, County of Monterey seal.png

File:Superior Court of California, County of Monterey seal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Superior courts (California) → California Superior Court – Consistent with all others. Greg Bard (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I keep coming across this, and if the other articles are indeed named like this, a large discussion needs to be had with everyone. There is no "California Superior Court"; there are California superior courts, plural, a common noun, not a proper noun, as again there is no single court. It is not one court with several districts, they are separate, independent courts. Compare this to the New York Supreme Court, which is a single court with multiple divisions throughout the state. Superior courts are a type of court, not a court. (Calif. Const., art. VI, sec. 4.: "In each county there is a superior court of one or more judges.") (sec. 10: "The Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior courts...")

This is an important difference. One would not call city courts in Texas the "Texas City Courts"; this would imply it is one court, or that it is a court of Texas City. I should note that the reason I have not began this discussion for other courts is that, unlike California, we don't know the whether they are separate courts like in California, or one court with multiple divisions like New York's Supreme Court.

It is also a mistake that is to be expected. One rarely refers to all superior courts, but usually refer to the Superior Court, which is to say the superior court of that particular county, as there is usually no ambiguity which county one is in and which court one is referring to. Int21h (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Looking for court case back in 94 at Monterey park children's court on Robert James Bybee born 1990 San Bernardino county to Lori Bybee Son

Loribyee (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was this moved?

Why was this moved in the first place? The move makes no sense at all. If we are referring to them generally as a group using the official titles (in that each one is the Superior Court of California, County of [name of county]), then the correct title was the original title, "Superior Courts of California". If we are going to use Wikipedia's annoying consensus style (from British English) of lowercasing nouns used generically in titles to refer to a class or group of things, then the correct title should be "California superior courts," just as we use "United States courts of appeals."--Coolcaesar (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Because that was the name of another article, and I was standardizing. And yes, I think it should be "California superior courts" not "California Superior Courts", just like it should not be "United States Courts of Appeals" or "United States Courts Of Appeals". Int21h (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I just haven't done it because I didn't get a response during the discussion. (And I've been busy.) Int21h (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

One odd thing about User:Mliu92's edits to the superior court articles

The vast majority of User:Mliu92's edits to the superior court articles are excellent, but I've noticed one very odd habit.

California is among the majority of U.S. state governments that considers its state courts at the trial level to be separate courts, one for each county. This is different from the minority of state governments, such as New York and Arizona, which follow the convention inherited from the United Kingdom and the British Empire of treating the trial court of general jurisdiction as a single statewide court which happens to merely sit in multiple counties. I added a discussion of this issue several years ago to the state court article. So it is incorrect to write "the branch of the California superior court with jurisdiction over [county name] county." I propose to delete the words "the branch of the" from all of the superior court articles created or expanded by User:Mliu92, so that they would simply say so-and-so court "is the California superior court with jurisdiction over [county name] county." Any objections? Coolcaesar (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar No objections from me. Thanks for the good suggestion. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

We need to discuss a batch deletion of the incorrect reference to a "branch". I just tried to correct a few of these but it's taking way too long. I'm going to have to escalate this issue to the village pump to see if we can get a bot on this. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for handling a few of these. I fixed the rest. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Pulled out the massive digression about complex litigation as a violation of WP:NOR

That paragraph isn't grounded in "real world" experience in complex litigation. For example, the paragraph is mostly a bunch of vague paraphrases of primary sources (and one obviously obsolete secondary source evaluating the original pilot program), yet never mentions class actions, which is what complex departments are actually used for. (I have litigated my share of class actions in superior court complex departments, but I didn't like class actions and went back to regular civil litigation.)

The entire paragraph amounts to a massive amount of original research in violation of WP:NOR because it's based too much on citations to primary sources. One sign that the paragraph is original research is that it's not written at the correct level of abstraction. It attempts to support generalizations by citing directly to court web sites, rather than secondary sources like Elizabeth Cabraser's class action treatise for LexisNexis. Coolcaesar (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)