BAUSTERT v. Superior Court

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he fact that a witness will be on vacation on the date set for trial does not by itself constitute good cause for a continuance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Tucker
  California Court of Appeal· 2011-06-28· cited 17×
• Jensen v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2008-02-20· cited 15×
• People v. Sweeney
  California Court of Appeal· 2016-10-18· cited 10×
• Francis v. People
  Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands· 2015-10-23· cited 10×
• Mendez v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2008-04-30· cited 8×
• Perryman v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 2006-07-24· cited 3×
• People v. Flores
  Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California· 2009-02-27· cited 3×
• People v. Billingsley
  California Court of Appeal· 2018-05-02
• People v. Billingsley
  California Court of Appeal· 2018-05-08
• Elias v. Super. Ct.
  California Court of Appeal· 2022-05-17
• People v. Clark
  California Court of Appeal· 2022-07-14

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Memro
  California Supreme Court· 1995-11-30· cited 476×
• Owens v. Superior Court
  California Supreme Court· 1980-10-23· cited 65×
• Star Motor Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 1979-01-11· cited 52×
• Pickett v. Municipal Court
  California Court of Appeal· 1970-11-23· cited 17×
• People v. Shane
  California Court of Appeal· 2004-01-26· cited 15×
• People v. Alvarez
  California Court of Appeal· 1989-03-06· cited 9×
• Cunningham v. Municipal Court
  California Court of Appeal· 1976-09-22· cited 8×
• Brown v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 1987-02-11· cited 7×