California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Sarracino v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.Rptr. 21, 13 Cal.3d 1, 529 P.2d 53 (Cal. 1974):
5 The court rejected the argument that the constitutionally required 'stipulation' must be an agreement between at least two parties: 'It must be remembered that the 'stipulation' required is that 'of' and not 'between' the litigants. The decision to refer a pending cause to a judge pro tempore, and the selection of the individual member of the bar who is to so act, are, in the end, with the court, which must approve and order the designation, not with the litigant. If 'agreement' is here required, it is the agreement between court and litigant which controls.' (Barfield v. Superior Court, supra, 216 Cal.App.2d at p. 479, 31 Cal.Rptr. at p. 32.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.