What does "v. Superior Court" mean?

Question

In California, when a case is listed in the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, sometimes it lists the Superior Court as a party. Does this mean the Superior Court is party to the case, or just that it was the court that handed down the original decision? I am assuming the other party listed is the one that is appealing, but I don't understand why the case should be filed against the Superior Court rather than against the original opposing party. You never see US Supreme Court cases saying Smith v. U.S. District Court. Someone please explain how this works. Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

This is an appellate decision...... The original case was heard in a lower court, and the decision was appealed to a higher court for a final ruling.........

Answer 2

Mattapan26 is correct, I just wanted to follow up with a little more information. When a petition for writ is filed in which the court is the named respondent, the court almost never appears itself as a party in the litigation. In fact, in most cases the court is barred from appearing, and is what is called a "nominal respondent." The person filing the petition will be contesting a court order made in favor of another party in the trial court, and that party will be named as a "real party in interest." It is that person who will defend the trial court's order in the reviewing court. (There are a very few situations where the challenge is to some court procedure where the court can get involved.)

In fact, there are so many cases in California where the prosecutor (the "People") is the petitioner, resulting in the case name "People v. Superior Court," that they are named by the real party was well: "People v. Superior Court (Perez)."

If the petitioner is successful, the result will be an order to the trial court either preventing enforcement of the challenged order, or requiring a different order to be entered. Note that you will never see such a case title on an appeal, which will only have the names of the trial court litigants. It is limited to extraordinary writ actions.

Answer 3

I know I've mastered the ability to walk, talk and read. There's nothing much left to learn in these fields, and I can do it all with complete ease. Doesn't mean I never stub my toe, slur a few words, or stumble on a sentence now and then, but I've reached a point where it's completely causal. I'm not an olympic sprinter, or a public speaker, or a speed reader -- those are all entirely separate skills -- but what I learned is plenty to get through life. I never forget that the martial arts are called an art, whether or not that's an Eastern interpretation, but in the West this does have a purpose. An art couldn't be something you perfect. Music, painting and sculpting all have near limitless potential, but stages of development that you would have to "master" to get better. A black belt, as we've explained before on here, is about having a firm understanding of the fundamentals, or "All basic movements and techniques, can be applied with extended force and proper application in basic combination." The key words here would be "all basic movements and techniques" and "extended force and proper application". I would say there is a mastery of having LEARNED the requirements and KNOW how to put them to use, just not anything further from the basics. I think people go a little too far with the word, using it mostly erroneously, but the intent of comfortably and casually using what you've learned is what they're all implying. As for the martial arts as a whole, that I believe is impossible, especially as an art.

Answer 4

In California if you lose on an important ruling in Superior Court which is the trial court, you can seek a writ (in this case meaing an order from the appeals court before the case is over in the Superior Court) from the court of appeal, in which case you would be seeking an order addressed to the Superior Court. The case is often captioned Smith v. Superior Court (Jones). There are no interlocutory appeals, meaning appeals seeking to overturn a ruling during the trial, in federal court, so there would be no case named that way in federal court.