Court Opinion

ID: 9547692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:50:29.251897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:57.019930
License: Public Domain

KAUS, J.
I concur in the result mainly because on a question of this sort it is important that the outcome reflect the consensus of the court, even if that consensus commands widely disparate degrees of enthusiasm. At the same time I cannot resist a wistful note that with a certain amount of imagination — “liberal construction,” if you will — it would have been possible to read the procedural provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 170 so as to confer on each court — appellate as well *941as trial — jurisdiction to determine the challenged qualification of justices or judges. Given that interpretation, Code of Civil Procedure section 187 would indeed come into play and should permit an appropriate procedure to be devised.
The petitions of real parties in interest for a rehearing were denied August 25, 1982. Bird, C. J., did not participate therein.