STATE STATUTES & CODES
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
CALIFORNIA STATUTES AND CODES
SECTIONS 69580-69615
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 69580-69615
69580. In the County of Alameda there are 69 judges of the superior court. 69580.3. In the County of Alpine there are two judges of the superior court. 69580.7. In the County of Amador there are two judges of the superior court. 69581. In the County of Butte there are 10 judges of the superior court. 69581.3. In the County of Calaveras there are two judges of the superior court. 69581.7. In the County of Colusa there are two judges of the superior court. 69582. In the County of Contra Costa there are 33 judges of the superior court. 69582.3. In the County of Del Norte there are two judges of the superior court. 69582.5. In the County of El Dorado there are six judges of the superior court. 69583. In the County of Fresno there are 36 judges of the superior court. 69583.5. In the County of Glenn there are two judges of the superior court. 69584. In the County of Humboldt there are seven judges of the superior court. 69584.5. In the County of Imperial there are nine judges of the superior court. 69584.7. In the County of Inyo there are two judges of the superior court. 69585. In the County of Kern there are 33 judges of the superior court. 69585.5. In the County of Kings there are seven judges of the superior court. 69585.7. In the County of Lake there are four judges of the superior court. 69585.9. In the County of Lassen there are two judges of the superior court. 69586. In the County of Los Angeles there are 429 judges of the superior court. 69587. In the County of Madera there are seven judges of the Superior Court. 69588. In the County of Marin there are 10 judges of the Superior Court. 69588.3. In the County of Mariposa there are two judges of the superior court. 69588.7. In the County of Mendocino there are eight judges of the superior court. 69589. In the County of Merced there are six judges of the superior court. 69589.3. In the County of Modoc there are two judges of the superior court. 69589.7. In the County of Mono there are two judges of the superior court. 69590. In the County of Monterey there are 18 judges of the superior court. 69590.5. In the County of Napa there are six judges of the superior court. 69590.7. In the County of Nevada there are six judges of the superior court. 69591. In the County of Orange there are 109 judges of the superior court. 69591.3. In the County of Placer there are nine judges of the superior court. 69591.7. In the County of Plumas there are two judges of the superior court. 69592. In the County of Riverside there are 49 judges of the superior court. 69593. In the County of Sacramento there are 52 judges of the superior court. 69593.5. In the County of San Benito there are two judges of the superior court. 69594. In the County of San Bernardino there are 63 judges of the superior court. 69595. In the County of San Diego there are 128 judges of the superior court. 69596. In the City and County of San Francisco there are 50 judges of the superior court. 69598. In the County of San Joaquin there are 26 judges of the superior court. 69598.5. In the County of San Luis Obispo there are 11 judges of the superior court. 69599. In San Mateo County there are 26 judges of the superior court. 69599.5. In the County of Santa Barbara there are 19 judges of the superior court. 69600. In the County of Santa Clara there are 79 judges of the superior court. 69600.5. In the County of Santa Cruz there are 10 judges of the superior court. 69601. In the County of Shasta there are nine judges of the superior court. 69601.3. In the County of Sierra there are two judges of the superior court. 69601.7. In the County of Siskiyou there are four judges of the superior court. 69602. In the County of Solano there are 16 judges of the superior court. 69603. In the County of Sonoma there are 16 judges of the superior court. 69604. In the County of Stanislaus there are 17 judges of the superior court. 69604.3. In the County of Sutter there are five judges of the superior court. 69604.5. In the County of Tehama there are four judges of the superior court. 69604.7. In the County of Trinity there are two judges of the superior court. 69605. In the County of Tulare there are 16 judges of the superior court. 69605.5. In the County of Tuolumne there are four judges of the superior court. 69606. In the County of Ventura there are 28 judges of the superior court. 69610. In the County of Yolo there are nine judges of the superior court. 69611. In the County of Yuba there are five judges of the superior court. 69614. (a) Upon appropriation by the Legislature in the 2006-07 fiscal year, there shall be 50 additional judges allocated to the various superior courts pursuant to the uniform criteria described in subdivision (b) for determining the need for additional superior court judges. (b) The judges shall be allocated, in accordance with the uniform standards for factually determining additional judicial need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council in August 2001, and as modified and approved by the Judicial Council in August 2004, pursuant to the Update of Judicial Needs Study, based on the following criteria: (1) Court filings data averaged over a period of three years. (2) Workload standards that represent the average amount of time of bench and nonbench work required to resolve each case type. (3) A ranking methodology that provides consideration for courts that have the greatest need relative to their current complement of judicial officers. (c) (1) The Judicial Council shall report to the Legislature and the Governor on or before November 1 of every even-numbered year on the factually determined need for new judgeships in each superior court using the uniform criteria for allocation of judgeships described in subdivision (b), as updated and applied to the average of the prior three years' filings. (2) On or before November 30, 2011, the Judicial Council shall provide to the Legislature a special assessment of the need for new judgeships in the family law and juvenile law assignments for each superior court. (3) The Judicial Council shall report, beginning with the report due to the Legislature on November 1, 2012, on the implementation and effect of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 69615. 69614.2. Upon appropriation by the Legislature in the 2007-08 fiscal year, there shall be 50 additional judges allocated to the various county superior courts, pursuant to the uniform criteria described in subdivision (b) of Section 69614, as updated and approved by the Judicial Council on February 23, 2007. 69614.3. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the 100 additional new judges provided for in Sections 69614 and 69614.2 shall be allocated to the various county superior courts, pursuant to the following appointment schedule: (a) On or before June 30, 2008, 40 additional judges shall be appointed. (b) On or after July 1, 2008, 10 additional judges shall be appointed. (c) On or after June 1, 2009, 50 additional judges shall be appointed. 69615. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to restore an appropriate balance between subordinate judicial officers and judges in the trial courts by providing for the conversion, as needed, of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in courts that assign subordinate judicial officers to act as temporary judges. The Legislature finds that these positions must be converted to judgeships in order to ensure that critical case types, including family, probate, and juvenile law matters, can be heard by judges. (b) (1) The Legislature finds that because of the unique nature of family and juvenile law matters, including the long-lasting impact of decisions in these cases, particularly on vulnerable children, whenever possible, these cases should be presided over by judges, who are accountable to the public. (2) The Legislature also finds that a Judicial Council study concluded that public trust and confidence in the courts are strongest when the public believes that the decisionmaking processes used by the court are fair and allow each litigant a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the court. In order to improve the public perception of procedural fairness in family law and juvenile law matters, it is necessary that cases be heard by judges whenever possible. (3) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature, in allowing the conversion of up to 10 additional subordinate judicial officer positions, as provided in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), to expedite the timeline for ensuring that family and juvenile law matters are presided over by judges. (c) (1) (A) Sixteen subordinate judicial officer positions in eligible superior courts, as determined and approved by the Judicial Council on February 23, 2007, pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for converting existing subordinate judicial officer positions to superior court judgeships, shall be converted to judgeships as set forth in paragraph (2). (B) Upon subsequent authorization by the Legislature, 146 subordinate judicial officer positions in eligible superior courts, as determined by the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for converting existing subordinate judicial officer positions to superior court judgeships, shall be converted to judgeships as set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3), except that no more than 16 subordinate judicial officer positions may be converted in any fiscal year. (C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), up to 10 additional subordinate judicial officer positions in eligible superior courts may be converted to superior court judgeships in any fiscal year. Each additional position may be converted to a judgeship only if the conversion will result in a judge being assigned to a family law or juvenile law assignment previously presided over by a subordinate judicial officer. The additional conversions authorized by this subparagraph are subject to the requirements of paragraph (3). (2) The positions for conversion shall be allocated each fiscal year pursuant to uniform allocation standards to be developed by the Judicial Council for factually determining the relative judicial need for conversion of a subordinate judicial officer position that becomes vacant to a superior court judgeship position. (3) Beginning in the 2010-11 fiscal year, a subordinate judicial officer position shall be converted to a judgeship when all of the following conditions are met: (A) A vacancy occurs in a subordinate judicial officer position in an eligible superior court as determined by the uniform allocation standards described in paragraph (2). (B) The Judicial Council files notice of the vacancies and allocations with the Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Rules, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Chairpersons of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary. (C) Except for proposed actions authorized pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), the proposed action is ratified by the Legislature, either in the annual Budget Act or by statutory enactment. Because of the unique nature of the need for judges as expressed in subdivision (b), a proposed action under subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) shall be ratified by the Legislature by statutory enactment other than the annual Budget Act. (4) Section 12011.5 shall apply to an appointment to a superior court judgeship converted from a subordinate judicial officer position. (d) For purposes of this section, "subordinate judicial officer" means an officer appointed under the authority of Section 22 of Article VI of the California Constitution. This section shall not apply to a subordinate judicial officer position established by Section 4251 of the Family Code. (e) It is the intent of the Legislature that no subordinate judicial officer shall involuntarily lose his or her position solely due to operation of this section. This section does not change the employment relationship between subordinate judicial officers and the trial courts established by law. (f) This section does not limit the authority of the Governor to appoint a person to fill a vacancy pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16 of Article VI of the California Constitution. (g) This section does not entitle a court to an increase in funding. (h) The operation of this section shall neither increase nor decrease the number of judicial and subordinate judicial officer positions and court support positions for which a county is responsible by law.
SECTION 69580-69615
69580. In the County of Alameda there are 69 judges of the superior court. 69580.3. In the County of Alpine there are two judges of the superior court. 69580.7. In the County of Amador there are two judges of the superior court. 69581. In the County of Butte there are 10 judges of the superior court. 69581.3. In the County of Calaveras there are two judges of the superior court. 69581.7. In the County of Colusa there are two judges of the superior court. 69582. In the County of Contra Costa there are 33 judges of the superior court. 69582.3. In the County of Del Norte there are two judges of the superior court. 69582.5. In the County of El Dorado there are six judges of the superior court. 69583. In the County of Fresno there are 36 judges of the superior court. 69583.5. In the County of Glenn there are two judges of the superior court. 69584. In the County of Humboldt there are seven judges of the superior court. 69584.5. In the County of Imperial there are nine judges of the superior court. 69584.7. In the County of Inyo there are two judges of the superior court. 69585. In the County of Kern there are 33 judges of the superior court. 69585.5. In the County of Kings there are seven judges of the superior court. 69585.7. In the County of Lake there are four judges of the superior court. 69585.9. In the County of Lassen there are two judges of the superior court. 69586. In the County of Los Angeles there are 429 judges of the superior court. 69587. In the County of Madera there are seven judges of the Superior Court. 69588. In the County of Marin there are 10 judges of the Superior Court. 69588.3. In the County of Mariposa there are two judges of the superior court. 69588.7. In the County of Mendocino there are eight judges of the superior court. 69589. In the County of Merced there are six judges of the superior court. 69589.3. In the County of Modoc there are two judges of the superior court. 69589.7. In the County of Mono there are two judges of the superior court. 69590. In the County of Monterey there are 18 judges of the superior court. 69590.5. In the County of Napa there are six judges of the superior court. 69590.7. In the County of Nevada there are six judges of the superior court. 69591. In the County of Orange there are 109 judges of the superior court. 69591.3. In the County of Placer there are nine judges of the superior court. 69591.7. In the County of Plumas there are two judges of the superior court. 69592. In the County of Riverside there are 49 judges of the superior court. 69593. In the County of Sacramento there are 52 judges of the superior court. 69593.5. In the County of San Benito there are two judges of the superior court. 69594. In the County of San Bernardino there are 63 judges of the superior court. 69595. In the County of San Diego there are 128 judges of the superior court. 69596. In the City and County of San Francisco there are 50 judges of the superior court. 69598. In the County of San Joaquin there are 26 judges of the superior court. 69598.5. In the County of San Luis Obispo there are 11 judges of the superior court. 69599. In San Mateo County there are 26 judges of the superior court. 69599.5. In the County of Santa Barbara there are 19 judges of the superior court. 69600. In the County of Santa Clara there are 79 judges of the superior court. 69600.5. In the County of Santa Cruz there are 10 judges of the superior court. 69601. In the County of Shasta there are nine judges of the superior court. 69601.3. In the County of Sierra there are two judges of the superior court. 69601.7. In the County of Siskiyou there are four judges of the superior court. 69602. In the County of Solano there are 16 judges of the superior court. 69603. In the County of Sonoma there are 16 judges of the superior court. 69604. In the County of Stanislaus there are 17 judges of the superior court. 69604.3. In the County of Sutter there are five judges of the superior court. 69604.5. In the County of Tehama there are four judges of the superior court. 69604.7. In the County of Trinity there are two judges of the superior court. 69605. In the County of Tulare there are 16 judges of the superior court. 69605.5. In the County of Tuolumne there are four judges of the superior court. 69606. In the County of Ventura there are 28 judges of the superior court. 69610. In the County of Yolo there are nine judges of the superior court. 69611. In the County of Yuba there are five judges of the superior court. 69614. (a) Upon appropriation by the Legislature in the 2006-07 fiscal year, there shall be 50 additional judges allocated to the various superior courts pursuant to the uniform criteria described in subdivision (b) for determining the need for additional superior court judges. (b) The judges shall be allocated, in accordance with the uniform standards for factually determining additional judicial need in each county, as approved by the Judicial Council in August 2001, and as modified and approved by the Judicial Council in August 2004, pursuant to the Update of Judicial Needs Study, based on the following criteria: (1) Court filings data averaged over a period of three years. (2) Workload standards that represent the average amount of time of bench and nonbench work required to resolve each case type. (3) A ranking methodology that provides consideration for courts that have the greatest need relative to their current complement of judicial officers. (c) (1) The Judicial Council shall report to the Legislature and the Governor on or before November 1 of every even-numbered year on the factually determined need for new judgeships in each superior court using the uniform criteria for allocation of judgeships described in subdivision (b), as updated and applied to the average of the prior three years' filings. (2) On or before November 30, 2011, the Judicial Council shall provide to the Legislature a special assessment of the need for new judgeships in the family law and juvenile law assignments for each superior court. (3) The Judicial Council shall report, beginning with the report due to the Legislature on November 1, 2012, on the implementation and effect of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 69615. 69614.2. Upon appropriation by the Legislature in the 2007-08 fiscal year, there shall be 50 additional judges allocated to the various county superior courts, pursuant to the uniform criteria described in subdivision (b) of Section 69614, as updated and approved by the Judicial Council on February 23, 2007. 69614.3. Upon appropriation by the Legislature, the 100 additional new judges provided for in Sections 69614 and 69614.2 shall be allocated to the various county superior courts, pursuant to the following appointment schedule: (a) On or before June 30, 2008, 40 additional judges shall be appointed. (b) On or after July 1, 2008, 10 additional judges shall be appointed. (c) On or after June 1, 2009, 50 additional judges shall be appointed. 69615. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to restore an appropriate balance between subordinate judicial officers and judges in the trial courts by providing for the conversion, as needed, of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in courts that assign subordinate judicial officers to act as temporary judges. The Legislature finds that these positions must be converted to judgeships in order to ensure that critical case types, including family, probate, and juvenile law matters, can be heard by judges. (b) (1) The Legislature finds that because of the unique nature of family and juvenile law matters, including the long-lasting impact of decisions in these cases, particularly on vulnerable children, whenever possible, these cases should be presided over by judges, who are accountable to the public. (2) The Legislature also finds that a Judicial Council study concluded that public trust and confidence in the courts are strongest when the public believes that the decisionmaking processes used by the court are fair and allow each litigant a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the court. In order to improve the public perception of procedural fairness in family law and juvenile law matters, it is necessary that cases be heard by judges whenever possible. (3) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature, in allowing the conversion of up to 10 additional subordinate judicial officer positions, as provided in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), to expedite the timeline for ensuring that family and juvenile law matters are presided over by judges. (c) (1) (A) Sixteen subordinate judicial officer positions in eligible superior courts, as determined and approved by the Judicial Council on February 23, 2007, pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for converting existing subordinate judicial officer positions to superior court judgeships, shall be converted to judgeships as set forth in paragraph (2). (B) Upon subsequent authorization by the Legislature, 146 subordinate judicial officer positions in eligible superior courts, as determined by the Judicial Council pursuant to uniform criteria for determining the need for converting existing subordinate judicial officer positions to superior court judgeships, shall be converted to judgeships as set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3), except that no more than 16 subordinate judicial officer positions may be converted in any fiscal year. (C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), up to 10 additional subordinate judicial officer positions in eligible superior courts may be converted to superior court judgeships in any fiscal year. Each additional position may be converted to a judgeship only if the conversion will result in a judge being assigned to a family law or juvenile law assignment previously presided over by a subordinate judicial officer. The additional conversions authorized by this subparagraph are subject to the requirements of paragraph (3). (2) The positions for conversion shall be allocated each fiscal year pursuant to uniform allocation standards to be developed by the Judicial Council for factually determining the relative judicial need for conversion of a subordinate judicial officer position that becomes vacant to a superior court judgeship position. (3) Beginning in the 2010-11 fiscal year, a subordinate judicial officer position shall be converted to a judgeship when all of the following conditions are met: (A) A vacancy occurs in a subordinate judicial officer position in an eligible superior court as determined by the uniform allocation standards described in paragraph (2). (B) The Judicial Council files notice of the vacancies and allocations with the Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Rules, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Chairpersons of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary. (C) Except for proposed actions authorized pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), the proposed action is ratified by the Legislature, either in the annual Budget Act or by statutory enactment. Because of the unique nature of the need for judges as expressed in subdivision (b), a proposed action under subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) shall be ratified by the Legislature by statutory enactment other than the annual Budget Act. (4) Section 12011.5 shall apply to an appointment to a superior court judgeship converted from a subordinate judicial officer position. (d) For purposes of this section, "subordinate judicial officer" means an officer appointed under the authority of Section 22 of Article VI of the California Constitution. This section shall not apply to a subordinate judicial officer position established by Section 4251 of the Family Code. (e) It is the intent of the Legislature that no subordinate judicial officer shall involuntarily lose his or her position solely due to operation of this section. This section does not change the employment relationship between subordinate judicial officers and the trial courts established by law. (f) This section does not limit the authority of the Governor to appoint a person to fill a vacancy pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16 of Article VI of the California Constitution. (g) This section does not entitle a court to an increase in funding. (h) The operation of this section shall neither increase nor decrease the number of judicial and subordinate judicial officer positions and court support positions for which a county is responsible by law.
California Forms by Issue
California Court Forms
California Law
CALIFORNIA STATE LAWS
CALIFORNIA STATE
> California Budget
> California Counties
> California Zip Codes
CALIFORNIA TAX
> California Sales Tax
CALIFORNIA LABOR LAWS
CALIFORNIA COURT
> California Rules Of Court
> Small Claims Court - California
CALIFORNIA AGENCIES
California Court Map
Tips