fbpx
Wikipedia

Supreme Court of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building,[1] but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento.[2] Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.[3] Since 1850, the court has issued many influential decisions in a variety of areas including torts, property, civil and constitutional rights, and criminal law.

Supreme Court of California
Seal of the Supreme Court of California
Established1849
LocationSan Francisco (Headquarters)
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Composition methodGubernatorial nomination and confirmation by Chief Justice, Attorney General and a senior presiding judge of the Court of Appeal
Authorized byCalifornia Constitution
Appeals toSupreme Court of the United States (for matters involving U.S. federal law or the U.S. Constitution only)
Judge term length12 years; renewable
Number of positions7
WebsiteOfficial website
Chief Justice
CurrentlyPatricia Guerrero
SinceJanuary 2, 2023
Lead position endsJanuary 8, 2035

Composition edit

Under the original 1849 California Constitution, the Court started with a chief justice and two associate justices.[2][4] The Court was expanded to five justices in 1862.[2] Under the current 1879 constitution, the Court expanded to six associate justices and one chief justice, for the current total of seven.[2][5] The justices are appointed by the Governor of California and are subject to retention elections.[6]

According to the California Constitution, to be considered for appointment, as with any California judge, a person must be an attorney admitted to practice in California or have served as a judge of a California court for 10 years immediately preceding the appointment.[7]

To fill a vacant position, the Governor must first submit a candidate's name to the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation of the State Bar of California, which prepares and returns a thorough, confidential evaluation of the candidate.[8] Next, the Governor officially nominates the candidate, who must then be evaluated by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which consists of the Chief Justice of California, the Attorney General of California, and a senior presiding justice of the California Courts of Appeal.[9] The Commission holds a public hearing and if satisfied with the nominee's qualifications, confirms the nomination. The nominee can then immediately fill an existing vacancy, or replace a departing justice at the beginning of the next judicial term.

If a nominee is confirmed to fill a vacancy that arose partway through a judicial term, the justice must stand for retention during the next gubernatorial election. Voters then determine whether to retain the justice for the remainder of the judicial term. At the term's conclusion, justices must again undergo a statewide retention election for a full 12-year term.[10] If a majority votes "no", the seat becomes vacant and may be filled by the Governor.

The electorate has occasionally exercised the power not to retain justices.[11] Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin were staunchly opposed to capital punishment and were subsequently removed in the 1986 general election.[12] Newly reelected Governor George Deukmejian was then able to elevate Associate Justice Malcolm M. Lucas to Chief Justice and appoint three new associate justices (one to replace Lucas in his old post and two to replace Reynoso and Grodin).[13]

Structure edit

Between 1879 and 1966, the court was divided by the state constitution into two three-justice panels, Department One and Department Two.[2][14] The chief justice divided cases evenly between the panels and also decided which cases would be heard "in bank" (en banc) by the Court sitting as a whole. During the late 1920s, the court gradually transitioned to routinely hearing all appeals in bank, apart from two unusual exceptions in 1941 when it again tried to sit in departments.[2] The 1966 formal abolition of the department system merely confirmed how the court had been actually operating for quite some time.[2]

 
The Court's headquarters in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building and Courthouse, which it shares with the Court of Appeal for the First District

Oral argument was mandatory only for in bank hearings of appeals, which meant that many appeals were decided by three-justice departments on the briefs alone.[2] However, the state constitution required department decisions to be unanimous to produce a final judgment.[2] Any dissent automatically triggered an in bank hearing.[2] After a constitutional amendment in 1966, the Court currently sits in bank (all seven together) when hearing all appeals.[2] When there is an open seat on the court, or if a justice recuses himself or herself on a given case, justices from the California Courts of Appeal are assigned by the chief justice to join the court for individual cases on a rotational basis.

The procedure for when all justices recuse themselves from a case has varied over time.[15] For a 1992 case, the chief justice requested the presiding justice of a Court of Appeal district (different from the one where the case originated) to select six other Court of Appeal justices from his district, and they formed an acting Supreme Court for the purpose of deciding that one case.[16] However, in a later case where all members of the Court recused themselves when Governor Schwarzenegger sought a writ of mandate (Schwarzenegger v. Court of Appeal (Epstein)), seven justices of the Courts of Appeal were selected based on the regular rotational basis, not from the same district, with the most senior one serving as the acting chief justice, and that acting supreme court eventually denied the writ petition.[17] In a yet more recent case (Mallano v. Chiang) where all members of the Court recused themselves on a petition for review by retired Court of Appeal justices on a matter involving those justices' salaries (that apparently involved matters up to and including the 2016–2017 fiscal year), the Court ordered that six superior court judges be selected from the pool that took office after July 1, 2017, to serve as the substitute justices for the six sitting justices, with the senior judge among that group serving as the acting Chief Justice; that acting Supreme Court eventually denied the petition for review.[18]

Membership edit

Justice Born Joined Term ends Appointed by Law school
 
Patricia Guerrero, Chief Justice
(1971-12-07) December 7, 1971 (age 51) March 28, 2022 (as Associate Justice)
January 2, 2023 (as Chief Justice)
2034 Gavin Newsom (D) Stanford
 
Carol Corrigan
(1948-08-16) August 16, 1948 (age 75) January 4, 2006 2030 Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) UC Law SF
 
Goodwin Liu
(1970-10-19) October 19, 1970 (age 53) September 1, 2011 2034 Jerry Brown (D) Yale
 
Leondra Kruger
(1976-07-28) July 28, 1976 (age 47) January 5, 2015 2030 Jerry Brown (D) Yale
 
Joshua Groban
(1973-08-15) August 15, 1973 (age 50) January 3, 2019 2026 Jerry Brown (D) Harvard
 
Martin Jenkins
(1953-11-12) November 12, 1953 (age 70) December 4, 2020 2034 Gavin Newsom (D) USF
 
Kelli Evans
(1968-07-09) July 9, 1968 (age 55) January 2, 2023 2026 Gavin Newsom (D) UC Davis

Six current justices were appointed by Democrats (Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, Guerrero and Evans) and one by Republicans (Corrigan).

There are three African American (Kruger, Jenkins, Evans) justices, one East Asian American justice (Liu), two non-Hispanic white justices (Corrigan, Groban) and one Latina (Guerrero). One justice earned an undergraduate degree from a University of California school (Guerrero at Berkeley), five from private universities in California (Corrigan at Holy Names, Liu, Groban and Evans at Stanford, and Jenkins at Santa Clara), and one from an out-of-state private university (Kruger at Harvard). Two justices earned their law degrees from a University of California law school (Corrigan at UC Law SF and Evans at Davis), two from a private California university (Guerrero at Stanford and Jenkins at the University of San Francisco), and three from law schools at out-of-state private universities (Liu and Kruger at Yale, and Groban at Harvard).

The most recent addition to the court is Associate Justice Kelli Evans, who was sworn in on January 2, 2023, to replace then-Associate Justice Patricia Guerrero, who was elevated to chief justice.[19] In 2023, Guerrero became the first Latina to serve as chief justice.[20]

The court first had a female majority from 2011 to 2017. The majority was achieved in 2011 after Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye to the court, joining Justice Joyce L. Kennard (an appointee of Republican Governor George Deukmejian), Justice Kathryn Werdegar (appointed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson), and Justice Carol A. Corrigan (another Schwarzenegger appointee). When Kennard retired in 2014, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown preserved the female majority by appointing Leondra Kruger to succeed her. The female majority was restored in 2022, with the swearing-in of Guerrero.

Operation edit

 
The Ronald Reagan State Building, the Supreme Court's branch office in Los Angeles, which it shares with the Court of Appeal for the Second District

Jurisdiction edit

The Constitution of California gives the Court mandatory and exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases imposing capital punishment in California, although the Court has sponsored a state constitutional amendment to allow it to assign death penalty appeals to the California Courts of Appeal.[21] The Court has discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all cases reviewed by the Courts of Appeal; the latter were created by a 1904 constitutional amendment to relieve the Supreme Court of most of its workload so the Court could then focus on dealing with non-frivolous appeals that involved important issues of law.[22]

According to research by Justice Goodwin Liu, each year the Court has averaged 5,200 petitions for writs of certiorari and 3,400 petitions for habeas corpus, plus 40 additional petitions from inmates already on death row.[23] In an average year the Court will decide to hear 83 cases and will be required to hear appeals from 20 new inmates joining death row.[23] Each week, the Court votes on 150 to 300 petitions, paying special attention to a staff-recommended "A list" as well as to certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[23]

Internal procedure edit

The Court is open for business year-round (as opposed to operating only during scheduled "terms" as is commonplace in jurisdictions that observe the legal year). The Court hears oral argument at least one week per month, 10 months each year (except July and August). It has been headquartered in San Francisco since 1874.[2] Since 1878, it has regularly heard oral argument each year at San Francisco (four months), Los Angeles (four months), and Sacramento (two months).

According to Justice Liu, when a case is granted review, the Chief Justice assigns the case to a justice, who, after the parties finish briefing, then prepares a draft opinion.[23] Each justice writes a preliminary response to the draft opinion, and if the assigned justice is in the minority, she may ask the Chief Justice to reassign the case to someone in the majority.[23] The Court then hears oral arguments and, immediately afterwards, meet alone to vote.[23] The California Constitution requires suspension of the justices' salaries if the Court fails to then file a decision within 90 days.[23][24] The Court issues unanimous opinions in 77% of cases, compared to 43% by the Supreme Court of the United States.[23]

Throughout the year (including July and August), the justices have a conference every Wednesday the Court is not hearing oral argument, with the exception of the last week, respectively, of November and December (Thanksgiving and New Year's). New opinions are published online on Monday and Thursday mornings at 10 a.m. Paper copies also become available through the clerk's office at that time.

The Court is one of the few U.S. courts apart from the U.S. Supreme Court that enjoys the privilege of having its opinions routinely published in three hardcover reporters. The Court's Reporter of Decisions contracts with a private publisher (currently LexisNexis) to publish the official reporter, California Reports, now in its fifth series; note that the series number changes whenever the publisher changes, although the most recent changeover to the fifth series did not involve a change in reporter. West publishes California decisions in both the California Reporter (in its second series) and the Pacific Reporter (in its third series). (The New York Court of Appeals opinions are similarly published in three reporters.)

Each justice has five assigned chambers attorneys.[23] Since the late 1980s, the Court has turned away from the traditional use of law clerks, and has switched to permanent staff attorneys.[25] Justices Goodwin Liu and Leondra Kruger, however, have returned to the traditional use of recent law school graduates as one-year clerks for some of their staff positions.[23] The Court has about 85 staff attorneys, some of whom are attached to particular justices; the rest are shared as a central staff.[26][27] The advantage to this system is that the reduced turnover of staff attorneys (versus the traditional system of rotating through new law clerks every year) has improved the efficiency of the court in dealing with complex cases, particularly death penalty cases.

During its first half-century of operation, the Court struggled to keep up with its soaring caseload and very frequently fell behind, until the California Courts of Appeal were created in 1904.[2][14] This resulted in provisions in the 1879 Constitution requiring the Court to decide all cases in writing with reasons given[2][28] (to get rid of minor cases, it had often given summary dispositions with no reasons given[2][14]) and requiring California judges to certify in writing every month that no matter submitted for consideration had been outstanding for more than 90 days, or else they will not be paid.[2][29][30] To comply with the latter provision, the Court does not schedule oral argument until the justices and their staff attorneys have already studied the briefs, formulated their respective positions, and circulated draft opinions. Then, after the matter is formally "argued and submitted" before the Court, the justices can polish and file their opinions well before reaching the 90-day deadline. This differs sharply from the practice in all other federal and state appellate courts, where judges can schedule oral argument not long after written briefing is finished, but then may take many months (or even a year) after oral argument to file their opinions.

Historical procedure edit

In March 1885, the state legislature authorized the creation of the Supreme Court Commission to help with the Court's overwhelming backlog of pending appeals.[2] The justices were initially allowed to hire three commissioners.[2] Since oral argument was not mandatory except for in bank hearings of appeals, the justices began to assign cases to the commissioners which could likely be resolved on the briefs alone.[2] The number of commissioners was expanded in five in 1889.[2]

In retrospect, the commissioners can be seen as an important precursor of the law clerks and staff attorneys which the Court began to hire in the 1930s.[2] In contrast to modern practice, where appellate justices are expected to take ownership of the opinions to which they sign their names and staff members are mere ghostwriters, the commissioners openly signed their opinions.[2] Each of the approximately 4,400 appeals (3,700 reported, 700 unreported) handled by the commissioners was resolved by an opinion signed by one commissioner with the concurrence of two others.[2] The opinions always ended in a recommended disposition, such as: "We find no error in the record and the judgment should be affirmed."[2] Originally, this was followed by a one-line unsigned per curiam statement in the name of "The Court," such as: "For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed."[2] Starting in 1892, the three justices who reviewed and summarily adopted each commissioners' opinion began to also sign their names.[2]

The commissioners were only partially successful in reducing the chronic backlog.[2] The Commission was also subject to heavy criticism as an unelected "auxiliary court".[2] Attorneys who enjoyed appellate work but had difficulty holding onto judicial seats in partisan elections repeatedly bounced back and forth between serving as elected justices and unelected commissioners.[2] After two more decades of debate, the state legislature recognized that the state needed to establish intermediate appellate courts and referred the issue to the electorate.[2] In November 1904, Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 2 was approved by the state's voters, which abolished the Supreme Court Commission and created the California Courts of Appeal.[2] All five commissioners were promptly appointed in 1905 to serve among the original nine justices of the Courts of Appeal.[2]

Publication of opinions edit

Except for one decade at its founding, the Court has never been required by constitutional or statutory law to publish all its opinions.[2] The Court currently chooses to publish all opinions as a matter of public policy, as disclosed in rule 8.1105(a) of the California Rules of Court.[2] The original California Constitution of 1849 authorized the Court to publish all opinions that it "may deem expedient," and the current California Constitution of 1879 authorizes the Court to publish all opinions that it "deems appropriate."[2] In 1850, a statute was enacted directing the Supreme Court to publish opinions in all cases, but in 1855, the Court began to direct that some opinions should not be reported, and this procedure was retroactively approved by the legislature in an 1860 statute.[2] Over 1,800 unreported opinions were filed by the Court over the next 25 years (which includes the 700 unreported opinions filed by the commissioners).[2] The Pacific Reporter started to collect and publish the Court's unreported opinions at its launch in 1883, and then the Court gave in and switched back to publication of all opinions.[2] A small group of lawyers later recovered and compiled all the unreported opinions filed by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Commission before that point, which were published in a separate seven-volume reporter called California Unreported Cases starting in 1913.[2][31] Despite its name, those cases are citable as precedent.[32]

Ancillary responsibilities edit

The Court supervises the lower courts (including the trial-level California superior courts) through the Judicial Council of California and the California Commission on Judicial Performance, and also supervises California's legal profession through the State Bar of California. All lawyer admissions are done through recommendations of the State Bar, which then must be ratified by the Supreme Court, and attorney discipline is delegated to the State Bar Court of California (although suspensions longer than three years must be independently decided upon by the Court). California's bar is the largest in the U.S. with 210,000 members, of whom 160,000 are practicing.[33][34]

The court, with the assistance of the Reporter of Decisions, publishes the California Style Manual for use by the California Courts of Appeal and the superior courts.

Reputation edit

 
The Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building, the Supreme Court's branch office in Sacramento, which it shares with the Court of Appeal for the Third District

As the Wall Street Journal said in 1972:

The state's high court over the past 20 years has won a reputation as perhaps the most innovative of the state judiciaries, setting precedents in areas of criminal justice, civil liberties, racial integration, and consumer protection that heavily influence other states and the federal bench.[35]

Statistical analyses conducted by LexisNexis personnel at the Court's request indicate that the decisions of the Supreme Court of California are by far the most followed of any state supreme court in the United States.[36] Between 1940 and 2005, 1,260 decisions of the Court were expressly followed by out-of-state courts (meaning that those courts expressly found the Court's reasoning persuasive and applied it to the cases before them).

Many important legal concepts have been pioneered or developed by the Court, including strict liability for defective products, fair procedure, negligent infliction of emotional distress, palimony, insurance bad faith, wrongful life, and market-share liability.

The major film studios in and around Hollywood and the high-tech firms of Silicon Valley both fall under the Court's jurisdiction. Thus, the Court has decided a number of cases by, between, and against such companies, as well as several cases involving Hollywood celebrities[37] and high-tech executives.[38]

The California Supreme Court and all lower California state courts use a different writing style and citation system from the federal courts and many other state courts. California citations have the year between the names of the parties and the reference to the case reporter, as opposed to the national standard (the Bluebook) of putting the year at the end. For example, the famous case Marvin v. Marvin, which established the standard for non-marital partners' ability to sue for their contributions to the partnership, is rendered Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106] in California style, while it would be Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815 (1976), in Bluebook style. The California citation style, however, has always been the norm of common law jurisdictions outside the United States, including England, Canada and Australia.

While the U.S. Supreme Court justices indicate the author of an opinion and who has "joined" the opinion at the start of the opinion, California justices always sign a majority opinion at the end, followed by "WE CONCUR," and then the names of the joining justices. California judges are traditionally not supposed to use certain ungrammatical terms in their opinions, which has led to embarrassing fights between judges and the editor of the state's official reporters. California has traditionally avoided the use of certain French and Latin phrases like en banc, certiorari, and mandamus, so California judges and attorneys use "in bank," "review," and "mandate" instead (though "in bank" has become quite rare after 1974).

Finally, the Court has the power to "depublish" opinions by the Courts of Appeal (as opposed to the federal practice of not publishing certain "unpublished" opinions at all in the federal case reporters).[39] This means that even though the opinion has already been published in the official state reporters, it will be binding only upon the parties.[40] Stare decisis does not apply, and any new rules articulated will not be applied in future cases. Similarly, the California Supreme Court has the power to "publish" opinions by the California Courts of Appeal which were initially not published.[39]

Important cases edit

The California Supreme Court has handed down important and influential decisions since 1850. Some of the most significant of these important and influential Court decisions are listed below in date ascending order. Most of the Court decisions that follow were landmark decisions that were among the first such decisions in the United States or the world.

  • People v. Hall (1854):[41] A case which held that Chinese persons may not testify against a white man, even if the white man is accused of murdering a Chinese person; effectively overturned by state law in 1873. The Hall case has been described as “containing some of the most offensive racial rhetoric to be found in the annals of California appellate jurisprudence” and “the worst statutory interpretation case in history.”[42]
  • Houston v. Williams (1859):[43] A leading case on the separation of powers[44] under the California Constitution.
  • Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944):[45] Then-Associate Justice Roger Traynor suggested in a now-famous concurring opinion that the Court should dispose of legal fictions like warranties and impose strict liability for defective products as a matter of public policy.
  • Perez v. Sharp (1948):[46] The Court overturned the statutory ban on interracial marriage as unconstitutional. Perez directly influenced the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on this issue, Loving v. Virginia (1967).
  • Summers v. Tice (1948):[47] The Court shifted the burden to the defense to disprove causation when it was clear that one of two defendants must have caused the plaintiff's injury, but it was not clear which one.
  • Dillon v. Legg (1968):[48] The Court radically expanded the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) beyond its traditional form, which historically had been limited to plaintiffs standing in the same "zone of danger" as a relative who was killed.
  • Pacific Gas & E. Co. v. G. W. Drayage & Rigging Co., Inc. (1968):[49] The Court held that parol evidence could be conditionally received by a trial court to determine if a contract was ambiguous when not ambiguous on its face. This decision has not been followed by the courts of any other state.
  • Rowland v. Christian (1968):[50] The Court abolished the old distinctions between different types of persons entering land and imposed a general duty of care in the context of the tort of negligence.
  • People v. Belous (1969):[51] The Court held the state's criminal statute prohibiting abortions to be unconstitutionally vague, in a 4-3 decision.
  • People v. Anderson (1972):[52] The Court relied upon the state constitutional clause prohibiting "cruel or unusual punishment" (note the difference from the federal Constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause) to abolish capital punishment in California. The state electorate promptly overruled Anderson that same year with a popular initiative, Proposition 17, that kept the "cruel or unusual" clause but declared the death penalty to be neither cruel nor unusual.
  • Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974):[53] The Court held that criminal defendants have a right to access the arresting officer's personnel file when the defendant alleges in an affidavit that the officer used excessive force or lied about the circumstances of the arrest.
  • Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975):[54] The Court embraced comparative negligence as part of California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence.
  • Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976):[55] The Court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing resulted in a decision calling for a "duty to protect" the intended victim, which did not necessarily require that a potential victim be informed of the threat.
  • Marvin v. Marvin (1976):[56] The Court ruled in favor of the enforceability of non-marital relationship contracts, express or implied, to the extent that they are not founded purely upon meretricious sexual services. In other words, even though California does not recognize common law marriage, persons who cohabit for long periods of time and commingle their assets are allowed to plead and prove marriage-like contracts for support and division of property.
  • Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979):[57] The Court found that the broad right to freedom of speech in the state constitution included an implied right to freedom of speech in private shopping centers. The U.S. Supreme Court in turn held that the state supreme court's decision did not amount to a "taking" of the shopping center under federal constitutional law.
  • Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980):[58] The Court imposed market share liability on the makers of fungible hazardous products.
  • Thing v. La Chusa (1989):[59] The Court withdrew from the expansive form of NIED set forth in Dillon and imposed a rigid bright-line test for recovery in bystander NIED cases. The Thing decision included extensive dicta hostile to plaintiffs which more generally limited the scope of recovery for both the tort of negligence and emotional distress damages in California.
  • Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990):[60] The Court held that patients do not have intellectual property rights in profits from medical discoveries made with their body parts.
  • Wendland v. Wendland (2001):[61] The Court held that in the absence of a legally recognized method of determining who should make medical decisions on the behalf of an incompetent patient, the constitutional right to life and right to privacy granted special protection to the incompetent person.
  • Yount v. City of Sacramento (2008):[62] The Court held that a criminal conviction does not limit an individual's right to bring civil action for deprivation of rights in cases of excessive use of force.
  • In re Marriage Cases (2008):[63] The Court held that sexual orientation is a protected class which requires strict scrutiny and under such scrutiny, laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional under the state constitution. The state electorate overturned the marriage portion of the decision that same year by enacting a popular initiative, Proposition 8, but left in place the discrimination protections.
  • Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008):[64] The Court unanimously held in a Proposition 218 ("Right to Vote on Taxes Act") case that courts must exercise their independent judgment in reviewing local agency legislative decisions adopting special assessments. The highly deferential standard of review before Proposition 218 became law was grounded in separation of powers. Because the constitutional provisions of Proposition 218 were of equal dignity to the separation of powers doctrine, it no longer justified allowing a local agency to usurp the judicial function of interpreting and applying the constitutional provisions that governed assessments under Proposition 218.
  • People v. Diaz (2011):[65] The Court held that the warrantless search of information in a cell phone was valid when incident to a lawful arrest. (The holding in Diaz was eventually repudiated by the United States Supreme Court in Riley v. California.)

Notable former justices edit

List of chief justices edit

# Name Image Term
1 Serranus Clinton Hastings   1849–1851
2 Henry A. Lyons   1852
3 Hugh C. Murray   1852–1857
4 David S. Terry   1857–1859
5 Stephen J. Field   1859–1863
6 W. W. Cope   1863–1864
7 Silas W. Sanderson   1864–1866
8 John Currey   1866–1868
9 Lorenzo Sawyer   1868–1870
10 Augustus L. Rhodes   1870–1872
11 Royal T. Sprague   1872
12 William T. Wallace   1872–1879
13 Robert F. Morrison   1879–1887
14 Niles Searls   1887–1889
15 William H. Beatty   1889–1914
16 Matt I. Sullivan   1914–1915
17 Frank M. Angellotti   1915–1921
18 Lucien Shaw   1921–1923
19 Curtis D. Wilbur   1923–1924
20 Louis W. Myers   1924–1926
21 William H. Waste   1926–1940
22 Phil S. Gibson   1940–1964
23 Roger J. Traynor   1964–1970
24 Donald R. Wright   1970–1977
25 Rose Elizabeth Bird   1977–1987
26 Malcolm M. Lucas   1987–1996
27 Ronald M. George   1996–2011
28 Tani Cantil-Sakauye   2011–2023
29 Patricia Guerrero   2023–present

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ "Contact Us - supreme_court". www.courts.ca.gov. from the original on 2019-09-23. Retrieved 2019-09-27.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am Dear, Jake (2020). "California's First Judicial Staff Attorneys: The Surprising Role That Commissioners Played, 1885–1905, in Creating the Courts of Appeal" (PDF). California Legal History. 15: 125–161. ISSN 1930-4943. OCLC 825171095. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
  3. ^ Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 2d 450 2018-10-04 at the Wayback Machine (1962). In Auto Equity Sales, the Court explained: "Under the doctrine of stare decisis, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction. Otherwise, the doctrine of stare decisis makes no sense. The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California. Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court. Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court."
  4. ^ "Records of the Constitutional Convention of 1849". California Secretary of State. from the original on January 13, 2017. Retrieved September 27, 2017. Art. VI, Sec. 3.
  5. ^ "California Constitution". California Legislature. from the original on September 28, 2017. Retrieved September 27, 2017. Art. VI, Sec. 2, 16(a).
  6. ^ Levinson, Jessica A. (May 8, 2014). "Op-Ed: Why voters shouldn't be electing judges". Los Angeles Times. from the original on April 9, 2017. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  7. ^ "Codes Display Text". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. from the original on 2015-10-31. Retrieved 2016-02-07.
  8. ^ "Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation". State Bar of California. from the original on June 6, 2017. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  9. ^ "Commission on Judicial Appointments". California Courts. from the original on May 25, 2017. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  10. ^ "Article VI, Section 16". Constitution of California. 1879. Retrieved 2014-12-25.
  11. ^ "Judicial Selection in the States". Judicialselection.us. National Center for State Courts. from the original on November 16, 2018. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  12. ^ "What Does California's Experience with Recall of Judges Teach Us?". SCOCAblog. UC Berkeley Constitution Law Center and Hastings Law Journal. November 10, 2016. from the original on September 28, 2017. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  13. ^ Braitman, Jacqueline R.; Uelmen, Gerald F. (2013). Justice Stanley Mosk: A Life at the Center of California Politics and Justice. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. pp. 224–226. ISBN 9781476600710. from the original on 17 May 2016. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  14. ^ a b c See People v. Kelly, 40 Cal. 4th 106, 113 2018-10-04 at the Wayback Machine (2006), which explains the 1879 constitutional convention's decision to create a seven-justice court with two three-justice departments.
  15. ^ In a 1972 case, Mosk v. Superior Court 2017-07-10 at the Wayback Machine, 25 Cal. 3d 479 (1979), judges were selected by lot to serve on the panel after all of the Supreme Court justices recused themselves: "The Chief Justice assigned six Court of Appeal justices, who were selected by lot pursuant to an order by the Supreme Court, to act on the petition."
  16. ^ Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc., 2 Cal. 4th 342 2020-10-05 at the Wayback Machine (1992). All members of the Supreme Court recused themselves from the appeal of the First District's decision, so the Third District sat as an "acting" Supreme Court and gave the final opinion in the case.
  17. ^ "California Courts – Appellate Court Case Information". Judicial Council of California. from the original on November 7, 2017. Retrieved January 3, 2011.
  18. ^ "California Courts – Appellate Court Case Information". Judicial Council of California. from the original on July 29, 2020. Retrieved October 19, 2018.
  19. ^ "New California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero Takes Office".
  20. ^ Nevis, Sara (January 2, 2023). "Patricia Guerrero makes history as first Latina chief justice in California Supreme Court". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
  21. ^ "Press release: Supreme Court Proposes Amendments To Constitution in Death Penalty Appeals" (PDF). California Courts. November 19, 2007. (PDF) from the original on February 11, 2017. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  22. ^ See Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 754, 767–768 2020-10-05 at the Wayback Machine (2000).
  23. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Justice Goodwin Liu (2014). "How the California Supreme Court Actually Works" (PDF). UCLA Law Review. 61: 1246. (PDF) from the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2016.
  24. ^ "From the Bench: Supreme Justice Paterson Resigns". San Francisco Call. Vol. 75, no. 139. California Digital Newspaper Collection. April 28, 1894. from the original on August 23, 2017. Retrieved July 4, 2017. (Justice Van R. Paterson) grew weary of having to swear to affidavits to the effect that the hundred and one cases under his notice had been disposed of within the statutory ninety days after submission; a proceeding necessary among Supreme Court Justices before one cent of salary can be touched
  25. ^ Itir Yakar, "Unseen Staff Attorneys Anchor State's Top Court: Institution's System of Permanent Employees Means Workers Can Outlast the Justices," San Francisco Daily Journal, 30 May 2006, 1.
  26. ^ "Press release: State Judicial Staff Attorneys Can Now Help Bridge the Justice Gap". California Courts. May 9, 2016. from the original on July 15, 2017. Retrieved June 29, 2017. Collectively, California's Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal employ over 400 staff attorneys.
  27. ^ "Alumni News: Carin Fujisaki '85 Named Principal Attorney to Chief Justice of CA". University of California College of the Law. June 11, 2015. from the original on June 15, 2017. Retrieved June 29, 2017. The Supreme Court is a hive of activity, employing approximately 80 lawyers.
  28. ^ California Constitution, Article 6, Section 14 2020-07-20 at the Wayback Machine.
  29. ^ California Constitution, Article 6, Section 19 2016-04-09 at the Wayback Machine.
  30. ^ Sloss, Frank H. (1958). "M. C. Sloss and the California Supreme Court". California Law Review. 46 (5): 715–738. doi:10.2307/3478622. JSTOR 3478622. from the original on October 1, 2017. Retrieved June 27, 2017. The result was that the Department One justices soon became unable to make the monthly constitutional (Art. VI, Sec. 24) affidavit that no cases submitted longer than 90 days remained undecided, without which they could not draw their pay.
  31. ^ Ross, Peter V. (1913). California Unreported Cases: Being Those Determined in the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal of the State of California, But Not Officially Reported, with Annotations Showing Their Present Value as Authority, Volume 1. San Francisco, CA: Bender-Moss Company. Retrieved 19 August 2022.
  32. ^ Shalabi v. City of Fontana (2021) 11 Cal.5th 842, 846, fn. 2.
  33. ^ Flaherty, Kristina (September 2007). "State Bar celebrates its 80th anniversary". California Bar Journal. from the original on June 23, 2017. Retrieved June 29, 2017.
  34. ^ Cooper, Cynthia L. (Winter 2008). "Women Bar Presidents: Changing the Picture and Focus of Leadership" (PDF). Perspectives Magazine. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association: 9. (PDF) from the original on October 1, 2017. Retrieved June 29, 2017. The State Bar of California, a mandatory bar, is the largest in the nation, with 210,000 members— almost a quarter of the nation's lawyers.
  35. ^ Joann Lublin, "Trailblazing Bench: California High Court Often Points the Way for Judges Elsewhere," Wall Street Journal, 20 July 1972, 1.
  36. ^ Jake Dear and Edward W. Jessen, " Followed Rates" and Leading State Cases, 1940–2005, 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 683, 694 2014-10-18 at the Wayback Machine(2007).
  37. ^ See, e.g., NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court 2020-10-05 at the Wayback Machine, 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 778, 980 P.2d 337 (1999). KNBC and the Los Angeles Times sought access to the trial of Sondra Locke's lawsuit against Clint Eastwood.
  38. ^ See, e.g., Reid v. Google, Inc. 2020-10-05 at the Wayback Machine, 50 Cal. 4th 512, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327, 235 P.3d 988 (2010). This was Brian Reid's age discrimination lawsuit against Google.
  39. ^ a b "Rule 8.1105. Publication of appellate opinions". California Courts. from the original on October 7, 2017. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  40. ^ "Rule 8.1115. Citation of opinions". California Courts. from the original on May 25, 2017. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  41. ^ 4 Cal. 399 (1854)
  42. ^ Traynor, Michael. "The Infamous Case of People v. Hall (1854)". California Supreme Court Historical Society Newsletter (Spring/Summer 2017): 2.
  43. ^ 13 Cal. 24 (1859)
  44. ^ Lee, Blewett (1899). "The Constitutional Power of the Courts Over Admission to the Bar". Harv. L. Rev. 8 (234): 250. doi:10.2307/1323400. JSTOR 1323400. in which the Supreme Court said the legislature cannot require the court to issue opinions in writing.
  45. ^ 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944).
  46. ^ 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948).
  47. ^ 33 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948).
  48. ^ 68 Cal. 2d 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal. Rptr. 72 (1968).
  49. ^ 69 Ca. 2d 33, 442 P.2d 641 (1968).
  50. ^ 69 Cal. 2d 108, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P. 2d 561 (1968).
  51. ^ 71 Cal. 2d 954, 80 Cal. Rptr. 354 (1969).
  52. ^ 6 Cal. 3d 628, 100 Cal. Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880 (1972).
  53. ^ 11 Cal. 3d 531, 113 Cal. Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305 (1974).
  54. ^ 13 Cal. 3d 804, 119 Cal. Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975).
  55. ^ 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1976).
  56. ^ 18 Cal. 3d 660, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106 (1976).
  57. ^ 23 Cal.3d 899, 592 P.2d 341 (1979), aff'd sub nomine Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 100 S. Ct. 2035, 64 L. Ed. 2d 741 (1980).
  58. ^ 26 Cal. 3d 588, 607 P.2d 934, 163 Cal. Rptr. 132 (1980).
  59. ^ 48 Cal.3d 644, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814 (1989).
  60. ^ 51 Cal. 3d 120, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, 793 P.2d 479 (1990).
  61. ^ 26 Cal. 4th 519, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 4112, 28 P.3d 151 (2001).
  62. ^ 43 Cal.4th 885, 183 P.3d 471 (2008).
  63. ^ 43 Cal. 4th 757, 183 P.3d 384, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 (2008).
  64. ^ 44 Cal. 4th 431, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 312, 187 P. 3d 37 (2008).
  65. ^ 51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 (2011).
  66. ^ Friedenberg, Albert M. (1902). "Solomon Heydenfeldt: A Jewish Jurist Of Alabama and California". Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society. 10 (10): 129–140. JSTOR 43059669.

External links edit

  Media related to Supreme Court of California at Wikimedia Commons

  • Supreme Court of California
  • California Supreme Court Historical Society
  • At the Lectern – California Supreme Court Practice Blog

37°46′50″N 122°25′04″W / 37.7806°N 122.4178°W / 37.7806; -122.4178

supreme, court, california, redirects, here, other, uses, disambiguation, highest, final, court, appeals, courts, state, california, headquartered, francisco, earl, warren, building, regularly, holds, sessions, angeles, sacramento, decisions, binding, other, c. Cal redirects here For other uses see cal disambiguation The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U S state of California It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building 1 but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento 2 Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts 3 Since 1850 the court has issued many influential decisions in a variety of areas including torts property civil and constitutional rights and criminal law Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeal of the Supreme Court of CaliforniaEstablished1849LocationSan Francisco Headquarters SacramentoLos AngelesComposition methodGubernatorial nomination and confirmation by Chief Justice Attorney General and a senior presiding judge of the Court of AppealAuthorized byCalifornia ConstitutionAppeals toSupreme Court of the United States for matters involving U S federal law or the U S Constitution only Judge term length12 years renewableNumber of positions7WebsiteOfficial websiteChief JusticeCurrentlyPatricia GuerreroSinceJanuary 2 2023Lead position endsJanuary 8 2035 Contents 1 Composition 1 1 Structure 1 2 Membership 2 Operation 2 1 Jurisdiction 2 2 Internal procedure 2 2 1 Historical procedure 2 3 Publication of opinions 3 Ancillary responsibilities 4 Reputation 5 Important cases 6 Notable former justices 7 List of chief justices 8 See also 9 References 10 External linksComposition editUnder the original 1849 California Constitution the Court started with a chief justice and two associate justices 2 4 The Court was expanded to five justices in 1862 2 Under the current 1879 constitution the Court expanded to six associate justices and one chief justice for the current total of seven 2 5 The justices are appointed by the Governor of California and are subject to retention elections 6 According to the California Constitution to be considered for appointment as with any California judge a person must be an attorney admitted to practice in California or have served as a judge of a California court for 10 years immediately preceding the appointment 7 To fill a vacant position the Governor must first submit a candidate s name to the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation of the State Bar of California which prepares and returns a thorough confidential evaluation of the candidate 8 Next the Governor officially nominates the candidate who must then be evaluated by the Commission on Judicial Appointments which consists of the Chief Justice of California the Attorney General of California and a senior presiding justice of the California Courts of Appeal 9 The Commission holds a public hearing and if satisfied with the nominee s qualifications confirms the nomination The nominee can then immediately fill an existing vacancy or replace a departing justice at the beginning of the next judicial term If a nominee is confirmed to fill a vacancy that arose partway through a judicial term the justice must stand for retention during the next gubernatorial election Voters then determine whether to retain the justice for the remainder of the judicial term At the term s conclusion justices must again undergo a statewide retention election for a full 12 year term 10 If a majority votes no the seat becomes vacant and may be filled by the Governor The electorate has occasionally exercised the power not to retain justices 11 Chief Justice Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin were staunchly opposed to capital punishment and were subsequently removed in the 1986 general election 12 Newly reelected Governor George Deukmejian was then able to elevate Associate Justice Malcolm M Lucas to Chief Justice and appoint three new associate justices one to replace Lucas in his old post and two to replace Reynoso and Grodin 13 Structure edit Between 1879 and 1966 the court was divided by the state constitution into two three justice panels Department One and Department Two 2 14 The chief justice divided cases evenly between the panels and also decided which cases would be heard in bank en banc by the Court sitting as a whole During the late 1920s the court gradually transitioned to routinely hearing all appeals in bank apart from two unusual exceptions in 1941 when it again tried to sit in departments 2 The 1966 formal abolition of the department system merely confirmed how the court had been actually operating for quite some time 2 nbsp The Court s headquarters in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building and Courthouse which it shares with the Court of Appeal for the First DistrictOral argument was mandatory only for in bank hearings of appeals which meant that many appeals were decided by three justice departments on the briefs alone 2 However the state constitution required department decisions to be unanimous to produce a final judgment 2 Any dissent automatically triggered an in bank hearing 2 After a constitutional amendment in 1966 the Court currently sits in bank all seven together when hearing all appeals 2 When there is an open seat on the court or if a justice recuses himself or herself on a given case justices from the California Courts of Appeal are assigned by the chief justice to join the court for individual cases on a rotational basis The procedure for when all justices recuse themselves from a case has varied over time 15 For a 1992 case the chief justice requested the presiding justice of a Court of Appeal district different from the one where the case originated to select six other Court of Appeal justices from his district and they formed an acting Supreme Court for the purpose of deciding that one case 16 However in a later case where all members of the Court recused themselves when Governor Schwarzenegger sought a writ of mandate Schwarzenegger v Court of Appeal Epstein seven justices of the Courts of Appeal were selected based on the regular rotational basis not from the same district with the most senior one serving as the acting chief justice and that acting supreme court eventually denied the writ petition 17 In a yet more recent case Mallano v Chiang where all members of the Court recused themselves on a petition for review by retired Court of Appeal justices on a matter involving those justices salaries that apparently involved matters up to and including the 2016 2017 fiscal year the Court ordered that six superior court judges be selected from the pool that took office after July 1 2017 to serve as the substitute justices for the six sitting justices with the senior judge among that group serving as the acting Chief Justice that acting Supreme Court eventually denied the petition for review 18 Membership edit Justice Born Joined Term ends Appointed by Law school nbsp Patricia Guerrero Chief Justice 1971 12 07 December 7 1971 age 51 March 28 2022 as Associate Justice January 2 2023 as Chief Justice 2034 Gavin Newsom D Stanford nbsp Carol Corrigan 1948 08 16 August 16 1948 age 75 January 4 2006 2030 Arnold Schwarzenegger R UC Law SF nbsp Goodwin Liu 1970 10 19 October 19 1970 age 53 September 1 2011 2034 Jerry Brown D Yale nbsp Leondra Kruger 1976 07 28 July 28 1976 age 47 January 5 2015 2030 Jerry Brown D Yale nbsp Joshua Groban 1973 08 15 August 15 1973 age 50 January 3 2019 2026 Jerry Brown D Harvard nbsp Martin Jenkins 1953 11 12 November 12 1953 age 70 December 4 2020 2034 Gavin Newsom D USF nbsp Kelli Evans 1968 07 09 July 9 1968 age 55 January 2 2023 2026 Gavin Newsom D UC DavisSix current justices were appointed by Democrats Liu Kruger Groban Jenkins Guerrero and Evans and one by Republicans Corrigan There are three African American Kruger Jenkins Evans justices one East Asian American justice Liu two non Hispanic white justices Corrigan Groban and one Latina Guerrero One justice earned an undergraduate degree from a University of California school Guerrero at Berkeley five from private universities in California Corrigan at Holy Names Liu Groban and Evans at Stanford and Jenkins at Santa Clara and one from an out of state private university Kruger at Harvard Two justices earned their law degrees from a University of California law school Corrigan at UC Law SF and Evans at Davis two from a private California university Guerrero at Stanford and Jenkins at the University of San Francisco and three from law schools at out of state private universities Liu and Kruger at Yale and Groban at Harvard The most recent addition to the court is Associate Justice Kelli Evans who was sworn in on January 2 2023 to replace then Associate Justice Patricia Guerrero who was elevated to chief justice 19 In 2023 Guerrero became the first Latina to serve as chief justice 20 The court first had a female majority from 2011 to 2017 The majority was achieved in 2011 after Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Chief Justice Tani Cantil Sakauye to the court joining Justice Joyce L Kennard an appointee of Republican Governor George Deukmejian Justice Kathryn Werdegar appointed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson and Justice Carol A Corrigan another Schwarzenegger appointee When Kennard retired in 2014 Democratic Governor Jerry Brown preserved the female majority by appointing Leondra Kruger to succeed her The female majority was restored in 2022 with the swearing in of Guerrero Operation edit nbsp The Ronald Reagan State Building the Supreme Court s branch office in Los Angeles which it shares with the Court of Appeal for the Second DistrictJurisdiction edit The Constitution of California gives the Court mandatory and exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases imposing capital punishment in California although the Court has sponsored a state constitutional amendment to allow it to assign death penalty appeals to the California Courts of Appeal 21 The Court has discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all cases reviewed by the Courts of Appeal the latter were created by a 1904 constitutional amendment to relieve the Supreme Court of most of its workload so the Court could then focus on dealing with non frivolous appeals that involved important issues of law 22 According to research by Justice Goodwin Liu each year the Court has averaged 5 200 petitions for writs of certiorari and 3 400 petitions for habeas corpus plus 40 additional petitions from inmates already on death row 23 In an average year the Court will decide to hear 83 cases and will be required to hear appeals from 20 new inmates joining death row 23 Each week the Court votes on 150 to 300 petitions paying special attention to a staff recommended A list as well as to certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 23 Internal procedure edit The Court is open for business year round as opposed to operating only during scheduled terms as is commonplace in jurisdictions that observe the legal year The Court hears oral argument at least one week per month 10 months each year except July and August It has been headquartered in San Francisco since 1874 2 Since 1878 it has regularly heard oral argument each year at San Francisco four months Los Angeles four months and Sacramento two months According to Justice Liu when a case is granted review the Chief Justice assigns the case to a justice who after the parties finish briefing then prepares a draft opinion 23 Each justice writes a preliminary response to the draft opinion and if the assigned justice is in the minority she may ask the Chief Justice to reassign the case to someone in the majority 23 The Court then hears oral arguments and immediately afterwards meet alone to vote 23 The California Constitution requires suspension of the justices salaries if the Court fails to then file a decision within 90 days 23 24 The Court issues unanimous opinions in 77 of cases compared to 43 by the Supreme Court of the United States 23 Throughout the year including July and August the justices have a conference every Wednesday the Court is not hearing oral argument with the exception of the last week respectively of November and December Thanksgiving and New Year s New opinions are published online on Monday and Thursday mornings at 10 a m Paper copies also become available through the clerk s office at that time The Court is one of the few U S courts apart from the U S Supreme Court that enjoys the privilege of having its opinions routinely published in three hardcover reporters The Court s Reporter of Decisions contracts with a private publisher currently LexisNexis to publish the official reporter California Reports now in its fifth series note that the series number changes whenever the publisher changes although the most recent changeover to the fifth series did not involve a change in reporter West publishes California decisions in both the California Reporter in its second series and the Pacific Reporter in its third series The New York Court of Appeals opinions are similarly published in three reporters Each justice has five assigned chambers attorneys 23 Since the late 1980s the Court has turned away from the traditional use of law clerks and has switched to permanent staff attorneys 25 Justices Goodwin Liu and Leondra Kruger however have returned to the traditional use of recent law school graduates as one year clerks for some of their staff positions 23 The Court has about 85 staff attorneys some of whom are attached to particular justices the rest are shared as a central staff 26 27 The advantage to this system is that the reduced turnover of staff attorneys versus the traditional system of rotating through new law clerks every year has improved the efficiency of the court in dealing with complex cases particularly death penalty cases During its first half century of operation the Court struggled to keep up with its soaring caseload and very frequently fell behind until the California Courts of Appeal were created in 1904 2 14 This resulted in provisions in the 1879 Constitution requiring the Court to decide all cases in writing with reasons given 2 28 to get rid of minor cases it had often given summary dispositions with no reasons given 2 14 and requiring California judges to certify in writing every month that no matter submitted for consideration had been outstanding for more than 90 days or else they will not be paid 2 29 30 To comply with the latter provision the Court does not schedule oral argument until the justices and their staff attorneys have already studied the briefs formulated their respective positions and circulated draft opinions Then after the matter is formally argued and submitted before the Court the justices can polish and file their opinions well before reaching the 90 day deadline This differs sharply from the practice in all other federal and state appellate courts where judges can schedule oral argument not long after written briefing is finished but then may take many months or even a year after oral argument to file their opinions Historical procedure edit In March 1885 the state legislature authorized the creation of the Supreme Court Commission to help with the Court s overwhelming backlog of pending appeals 2 The justices were initially allowed to hire three commissioners 2 Since oral argument was not mandatory except for in bank hearings of appeals the justices began to assign cases to the commissioners which could likely be resolved on the briefs alone 2 The number of commissioners was expanded in five in 1889 2 In retrospect the commissioners can be seen as an important precursor of the law clerks and staff attorneys which the Court began to hire in the 1930s 2 In contrast to modern practice where appellate justices are expected to take ownership of the opinions to which they sign their names and staff members are mere ghostwriters the commissioners openly signed their opinions 2 Each of the approximately 4 400 appeals 3 700 reported 700 unreported handled by the commissioners was resolved by an opinion signed by one commissioner with the concurrence of two others 2 The opinions always ended in a recommended disposition such as We find no error in the record and the judgment should be affirmed 2 Originally this was followed by a one line unsigned per curiam statement in the name of The Court such as For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed 2 Starting in 1892 the three justices who reviewed and summarily adopted each commissioners opinion began to also sign their names 2 The commissioners were only partially successful in reducing the chronic backlog 2 The Commission was also subject to heavy criticism as an unelected auxiliary court 2 Attorneys who enjoyed appellate work but had difficulty holding onto judicial seats in partisan elections repeatedly bounced back and forth between serving as elected justices and unelected commissioners 2 After two more decades of debate the state legislature recognized that the state needed to establish intermediate appellate courts and referred the issue to the electorate 2 In November 1904 Senate Constitutional Amendment No 2 was approved by the state s voters which abolished the Supreme Court Commission and created the California Courts of Appeal 2 All five commissioners were promptly appointed in 1905 to serve among the original nine justices of the Courts of Appeal 2 Publication of opinions edit Except for one decade at its founding the Court has never been required by constitutional or statutory law to publish all its opinions 2 The Court currently chooses to publish all opinions as a matter of public policy as disclosed in rule 8 1105 a of the California Rules of Court 2 The original California Constitution of 1849 authorized the Court to publish all opinions that it may deem expedient and the current California Constitution of 1879 authorizes the Court to publish all opinions that it deems appropriate 2 In 1850 a statute was enacted directing the Supreme Court to publish opinions in all cases but in 1855 the Court began to direct that some opinions should not be reported and this procedure was retroactively approved by the legislature in an 1860 statute 2 Over 1 800 unreported opinions were filed by the Court over the next 25 years which includes the 700 unreported opinions filed by the commissioners 2 The Pacific Reporter started to collect and publish the Court s unreported opinions at its launch in 1883 and then the Court gave in and switched back to publication of all opinions 2 A small group of lawyers later recovered and compiled all the unreported opinions filed by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Commission before that point which were published in a separate seven volume reporter called California Unreported Cases starting in 1913 2 31 Despite its name those cases are citable as precedent 32 Ancillary responsibilities editThe Court supervises the lower courts including the trial level California superior courts through the Judicial Council of California and the California Commission on Judicial Performance and also supervises California s legal profession through the State Bar of California All lawyer admissions are done through recommendations of the State Bar which then must be ratified by the Supreme Court and attorney discipline is delegated to the State Bar Court of California although suspensions longer than three years must be independently decided upon by the Court California s bar is the largest in the U S with 210 000 members of whom 160 000 are practicing 33 34 The court with the assistance of the Reporter of Decisions publishes the California Style Manual for use by the California Courts of Appeal and the superior courts Reputation edit nbsp The Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building the Supreme Court s branch office in Sacramento which it shares with the Court of Appeal for the Third DistrictAs the Wall Street Journal said in 1972 The state s high court over the past 20 years has won a reputation as perhaps the most innovative of the state judiciaries setting precedents in areas of criminal justice civil liberties racial integration and consumer protection that heavily influence other states and the federal bench 35 Statistical analyses conducted by LexisNexis personnel at the Court s request indicate that the decisions of the Supreme Court of California are by far the most followed of any state supreme court in the United States 36 Between 1940 and 2005 1 260 decisions of the Court were expressly followed by out of state courts meaning that those courts expressly found the Court s reasoning persuasive and applied it to the cases before them Many important legal concepts have been pioneered or developed by the Court including strict liability for defective products fair procedure negligent infliction of emotional distress palimony insurance bad faith wrongful life and market share liability The major film studios in and around Hollywood and the high tech firms of Silicon Valley both fall under the Court s jurisdiction Thus the Court has decided a number of cases by between and against such companies as well as several cases involving Hollywood celebrities 37 and high tech executives 38 The California Supreme Court and all lower California state courts use a different writing style and citation system from the federal courts and many other state courts California citations have the year between the names of the parties and the reference to the case reporter as opposed to the national standard the Bluebook of putting the year at the end For example the famous case Marvin v Marvin which established the standard for non marital partners ability to sue for their contributions to the partnership is rendered Marvin v Marvin 1976 18 Cal 3d 660 134 Cal Rptr 815 557 P 2d 106 in California style while it would be Marvin v Marvin 18 Cal 3d 660 557 P 2d 106 134 Cal Rptr 815 1976 in Bluebook style The California citation style however has always been the norm of common law jurisdictions outside the United States including England Canada and Australia While the U S Supreme Court justices indicate the author of an opinion and who has joined the opinion at the start of the opinion California justices always sign a majority opinion at the end followed by WE CONCUR and then the names of the joining justices California judges are traditionally not supposed to use certain ungrammatical terms in their opinions which has led to embarrassing fights between judges and the editor of the state s official reporters California has traditionally avoided the use of certain French and Latin phrases like en banc certiorari and mandamus so California judges and attorneys use in bank review and mandate instead though in bank has become quite rare after 1974 Finally the Court has the power to depublish opinions by the Courts of Appeal as opposed to the federal practice of not publishing certain unpublished opinions at all in the federal case reporters 39 This means that even though the opinion has already been published in the official state reporters it will be binding only upon the parties 40 Stare decisis does not apply and any new rules articulated will not be applied in future cases Similarly the California Supreme Court has the power to publish opinions by the California Courts of Appeal which were initially not published 39 Important cases editThe California Supreme Court has handed down important and influential decisions since 1850 Some of the most significant of these important and influential Court decisions are listed below in date ascending order Most of the Court decisions that follow were landmark decisions that were among the first such decisions in the United States or the world People v Hall 1854 41 A case which held that Chinese persons may not testify against a white man even if the white man is accused of murdering a Chinese person effectively overturned by state law in 1873 The Hall case has been described as containing some of the most offensive racial rhetoric to be found in the annals of California appellate jurisprudence and the worst statutory interpretation case in history 42 Houston v Williams 1859 43 A leading case on the separation of powers 44 under the California Constitution Escola v Coca Cola Bottling Co 1944 45 Then Associate Justice Roger Traynor suggested in a now famous concurring opinion that the Court should dispose of legal fictions like warranties and impose strict liability for defective products as a matter of public policy Perez v Sharp 1948 46 The Court overturned the statutory ban on interracial marriage as unconstitutional Perez directly influenced the landmark U S Supreme Court decision on this issue Loving v Virginia 1967 Summers v Tice 1948 47 The Court shifted the burden to the defense to disprove causation when it was clear that one of two defendants must have caused the plaintiff s injury but it was not clear which one Dillon v Legg 1968 48 The Court radically expanded the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress NIED beyond its traditional form which historically had been limited to plaintiffs standing in the same zone of danger as a relative who was killed Pacific Gas amp E Co v G W Drayage amp Rigging Co Inc 1968 49 The Court held that parol evidence could be conditionally received by a trial court to determine if a contract was ambiguous when not ambiguous on its face This decision has not been followed by the courts of any other state Rowland v Christian 1968 50 The Court abolished the old distinctions between different types of persons entering land and imposed a general duty of care in the context of the tort of negligence People v Belous 1969 51 The Court held the state s criminal statute prohibiting abortions to be unconstitutionally vague in a 4 3 decision People v Anderson 1972 52 The Court relied upon the state constitutional clause prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment note the difference from the federal Constitution s cruel and unusual punishment clause to abolish capital punishment in California The state electorate promptly overruled Anderson that same year with a popular initiative Proposition 17 that kept the cruel or unusual clause but declared the death penalty to be neither cruel nor unusual Pitchess v Superior Court 1974 53 The Court held that criminal defendants have a right to access the arresting officer s personnel file when the defendant alleges in an affidavit that the officer used excessive force or lied about the circumstances of the arrest Li v Yellow Cab Co 1975 54 The Court embraced comparative negligence as part of California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California 1976 55 The Court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual but a 1976 rehearing resulted in a decision calling for a duty to protect the intended victim which did not necessarily require that a potential victim be informed of the threat Marvin v Marvin 1976 56 The Court ruled in favor of the enforceability of non marital relationship contracts express or implied to the extent that they are not founded purely upon meretricious sexual services In other words even though California does not recognize common law marriage persons who cohabit for long periods of time and commingle their assets are allowed to plead and prove marriage like contracts for support and division of property Robins v Pruneyard Shopping Center 1979 57 The Court found that the broad right to freedom of speech in the state constitution included an implied right to freedom of speech in private shopping centers The U S Supreme Court in turn held that the state supreme court s decision did not amount to a taking of the shopping center under federal constitutional law Sindell v Abbott Laboratories 1980 58 The Court imposed market share liability on the makers of fungible hazardous products Thing v La Chusa 1989 59 The Court withdrew from the expansive form of NIED set forth in Dillon and imposed a rigid bright line test for recovery in bystander NIED cases The Thing decision included extensive dicta hostile to plaintiffs which more generally limited the scope of recovery for both the tort of negligence and emotional distress damages in California Moore v Regents of the University of California 1990 60 The Court held that patients do not have intellectual property rights in profits from medical discoveries made with their body parts Wendland v Wendland 2001 61 The Court held that in the absence of a legally recognized method of determining who should make medical decisions on the behalf of an incompetent patient the constitutional right to life and right to privacy granted special protection to the incompetent person Yount v City of Sacramento 2008 62 The Court held that a criminal conviction does not limit an individual s right to bring civil action for deprivation of rights in cases of excessive use of force In re Marriage Cases 2008 63 The Court held that sexual orientation is a protected class which requires strict scrutiny and under such scrutiny laws prohibiting same sex marriage are unconstitutional under the state constitution The state electorate overturned the marriage portion of the decision that same year by enacting a popular initiative Proposition 8 but left in place the discrimination protections Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn Inc v Santa Clara County Open Space Authority 2008 64 The Court unanimously held in a Proposition 218 Right to Vote on Taxes Act case that courts must exercise their independent judgment in reviewing local agency legislative decisions adopting special assessments The highly deferential standard of review before Proposition 218 became law was grounded in separation of powers Because the constitutional provisions of Proposition 218 were of equal dignity to the separation of powers doctrine it no longer justified allowing a local agency to usurp the judicial function of interpreting and applying the constitutional provisions that governed assessments under Proposition 218 People v Diaz 2011 65 The Court held that the warrantless search of information in a cell phone was valid when incident to a lawful arrest The holding in Diaz was eventually repudiated by the United States Supreme Court in Riley v California Notable former justices editMain article List of justices of the Supreme Court of California Serranus Clinton Hastings Chief Justice 1850 1852 First Chief Justice founded UC Law SF Solomon Heydenfeldt Associate Justice 1852 1857 First Jewish justice to be elected by direct vote of the people 66 David S Terry Chief Justice 1857 1859 Killed while attempting to assassinate his successor Stephen Field Stephen J Field Chief Justice 1859 1863 Appointed by President Lincoln to the U S Supreme Court Addison Niles Associate Justice 1872 1880 Curtis D Wilbur Chief Justice 1923 1924 Appointed by President Coolidge as U S Secretary of the Navy Mathew Tobriner Associate Justice 1962 1982 Roger J Traynor Chief Justice 1964 1970 Associate Justice 1940 1964 Well respected legal scholar generally regarded as the greatest justice in the history of the Court Stanley Mosk Associate Justice 1964 2001 Longest serving justice Wiley W Manuel Associate Justice 1977 1981 First African American on the Court well known for his pro bono work Rose E Bird Chief Justice 1977 1987 First woman appointed to the Court only Chief Justice ever not to be retained by the electorate Otto Kaus Associate Justice 1981 1985 Allen Broussard Associate Justice 1981 1991 Cruz Reynoso Associate Justice 1982 1987 First Latino on the Court Janice Rogers Brown Associate Justice 1996 2005 Appointed by President G W Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Ronald M George Chief Justice 1996 2011 Associate Justice 1991 1996 Tani Cantil Sakauye Chief Justice 2011 2023 first Asian American chief justice List of chief justices edit Name Image Term1 Serranus Clinton Hastings nbsp 1849 18512 Henry A Lyons nbsp 18523 Hugh C Murray nbsp 1852 18574 David S Terry nbsp 1857 18595 Stephen J Field nbsp 1859 18636 W W Cope nbsp 1863 18647 Silas W Sanderson nbsp 1864 18668 John Currey nbsp 1866 18689 Lorenzo Sawyer nbsp 1868 187010 Augustus L Rhodes nbsp 1870 187211 Royal T Sprague nbsp 187212 William T Wallace nbsp 1872 187913 Robert F Morrison nbsp 1879 188714 Niles Searls nbsp 1887 188915 William H Beatty nbsp 1889 191416 Matt I Sullivan nbsp 1914 191517 Frank M Angellotti nbsp 1915 192118 Lucien Shaw nbsp 1921 192319 Curtis D Wilbur nbsp 1923 192420 Louis W Myers nbsp 1924 192621 William H Waste nbsp 1926 194022 Phil S Gibson nbsp 1940 196423 Roger J Traynor nbsp 1964 197024 Donald R Wright nbsp 1970 197725 Rose Elizabeth Bird nbsp 1977 198726 Malcolm M Lucas nbsp 1987 199627 Ronald M George nbsp 1996 201128 Tani Cantil Sakauye nbsp 2011 202329 Patricia Guerrero nbsp 2023 presentSee also edit nbsp California portal nbsp Law portalJudiciary of California Judicial Council of California J Edward Johnson a historian of the Court Impeachment in CaliforniaReferences edit Contact Us supreme court www courts ca gov Archived from the original on 2019 09 23 Retrieved 2019 09 27 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am Dear Jake 2020 California s First Judicial Staff Attorneys The Surprising Role That Commissioners Played 1885 1905 in Creating the Courts of Appeal PDF California Legal History 15 125 161 ISSN 1930 4943 OCLC 825171095 Retrieved 17 September 2022 Auto Equity Sales Inc v Superior Court 57 Cal 2d 450 Archived 2018 10 04 at the Wayback Machine 1962 In Auto Equity Sales the Court explained Under the doctrine of stare decisis all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction Otherwise the doctrine of stare decisis makes no sense The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction It is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court Records of the Constitutional Convention of 1849 California Secretary of State Archived from the original on January 13 2017 Retrieved September 27 2017 Art VI Sec 3 California Constitution California Legislature Archived from the original on September 28 2017 Retrieved September 27 2017 Art VI Sec 2 16 a Levinson Jessica A May 8 2014 Op Ed Why voters shouldn t be electing judges Los Angeles Times Archived from the original on April 9 2017 Retrieved June 6 2017 Codes Display Text leginfo legislature ca gov Archived from the original on 2015 10 31 Retrieved 2016 02 07 Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation State Bar of California Archived from the original on June 6 2017 Retrieved June 6 2017 Commission on Judicial Appointments California Courts Archived from the original on May 25 2017 Retrieved June 6 2017 Article VI Section 16 Constitution of California 1879 Retrieved 2014 12 25 Judicial Selection in the States Judicialselection us National Center for State Courts Archived from the original on November 16 2018 Retrieved June 6 2017 What Does California s Experience with Recall of Judges Teach Us SCOCAblog UC Berkeley Constitution Law Center and Hastings Law Journal November 10 2016 Archived from the original on September 28 2017 Retrieved June 6 2017 Braitman Jacqueline R Uelmen Gerald F 2013 Justice Stanley Mosk A Life at the Center of California Politics and Justice Jefferson NC McFarland amp Co pp 224 226 ISBN 9781476600710 Archived from the original on 17 May 2016 Retrieved 24 December 2015 a b c See People v Kelly 40 Cal 4th 106 113 Archived 2018 10 04 at the Wayback Machine 2006 which explains the 1879 constitutional convention s decision to create a seven justice court with two three justice departments In a 1972 case Mosk v Superior Court Archived 2017 07 10 at the Wayback Machine 25 Cal 3d 479 1979 judges were selected by lot to serve on the panel after all of the Supreme Court justices recused themselves The Chief Justice assigned six Court of Appeal justices who were selected by lot pursuant to an order by the Supreme Court to act on the petition Carma Developers Cal Inc v Marathon Development California Inc 2 Cal 4th 342 Archived 2020 10 05 at the Wayback Machine 1992 All members of the Supreme Court recused themselves from the appeal of the First District s decision so the Third District sat as an acting Supreme Court and gave the final opinion in the case California Courts Appellate Court Case Information Judicial Council of California Archived from the original on November 7 2017 Retrieved January 3 2011 California Courts Appellate Court Case Information Judicial Council of California Archived from the original on July 29 2020 Retrieved October 19 2018 New California Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero Takes Office Nevis Sara January 2 2023 Patricia Guerrero makes history as first Latina chief justice in California Supreme Court The Sacramento Bee Retrieved January 31 2023 Press release Supreme Court Proposes Amendments To Constitution in Death Penalty Appeals PDF California Courts November 19 2007 Archived PDF from the original on February 11 2017 Retrieved June 6 2017 See Snukal v Flightways Manufacturing Inc 23 Cal 4th 754 767 768 Archived 2020 10 05 at the Wayback Machine 2000 a b c d e f g h i j Justice Goodwin Liu 2014 How the California Supreme Court Actually Works PDF UCLA Law Review 61 1246 Archived PDF from the original on 5 October 2016 Retrieved 10 June 2016 From the Bench Supreme Justice Paterson Resigns San Francisco Call Vol 75 no 139 California Digital Newspaper Collection April 28 1894 Archived from the original on August 23 2017 Retrieved July 4 2017 Justice Van R Paterson grew weary of having to swear to affidavits to the effect that the hundred and one cases under his notice had been disposed of within the statutory ninety days after submission a proceeding necessary among Supreme Court Justices before one cent of salary can be touched Itir Yakar Unseen Staff Attorneys Anchor State s Top Court Institution s System of Permanent Employees Means Workers Can Outlast the Justices San Francisco Daily Journal 30 May 2006 1 Press release State Judicial Staff Attorneys Can Now Help Bridge the Justice Gap California Courts May 9 2016 Archived from the original on July 15 2017 Retrieved June 29 2017 Collectively California s Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal employ over 400 staff attorneys Alumni News Carin Fujisaki 85 Named Principal Attorney to Chief Justice of CA University of California College of the Law June 11 2015 Archived from the original on June 15 2017 Retrieved June 29 2017 The Supreme Court is a hive of activity employing approximately 80 lawyers California Constitution Article 6 Section 14 Archived 2020 07 20 at the Wayback Machine California Constitution Article 6 Section 19 Archived 2016 04 09 at the Wayback Machine Sloss Frank H 1958 M C Sloss and the California Supreme Court California Law Review 46 5 715 738 doi 10 2307 3478622 JSTOR 3478622 Archived from the original on October 1 2017 Retrieved June 27 2017 The result was that the Department One justices soon became unable to make the monthly constitutional Art VI Sec 24 affidavit that no cases submitted longer than 90 days remained undecided without which they could not draw their pay Ross Peter V 1913 California Unreported Cases Being Those Determined in the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal of the State of California But Not Officially Reported with Annotations Showing Their Present Value as Authority Volume 1 San Francisco CA Bender Moss Company Retrieved 19 August 2022 Shalabi v City of Fontana 2021 11 Cal 5th 842 846 fn 2 Flaherty Kristina September 2007 State Bar celebrates its 80th anniversary California Bar Journal Archived from the original on June 23 2017 Retrieved June 29 2017 Cooper Cynthia L Winter 2008 Women Bar Presidents Changing the Picture and Focus of Leadership PDF Perspectives Magazine Chicago IL American Bar Association 9 Archived PDF from the original on October 1 2017 Retrieved June 29 2017 The State Bar of California a mandatory bar is the largest in the nation with 210 000 members almost a quarter of the nation s lawyers Joann Lublin Trailblazing Bench California High Court Often Points the Way for Judges Elsewhere Wall Street Journal 20 July 1972 1 Jake Dear and Edward W Jessen Followed Rates and Leading State Cases 1940 2005 41 U C Davis L Rev 683 694 Archived 2014 10 18 at the Wayback Machine 2007 See e g NBC Subsidiary KNBC TV Inc v Superior Court Archived 2020 10 05 at the Wayback Machine 20 Cal 4th 1178 86 Cal Rptr 2d 778 980 P 2d 337 1999 KNBC and the Los Angeles Times sought access to the trial of Sondra Locke s lawsuit against Clint Eastwood See e g Reid v Google Inc Archived 2020 10 05 at the Wayback Machine 50 Cal 4th 512 113 Cal Rptr 3d 327 235 P 3d 988 2010 This was Brian Reid s age discrimination lawsuit against Google a b Rule 8 1105 Publication of appellate opinions California Courts Archived from the original on October 7 2017 Retrieved June 6 2017 Rule 8 1115 Citation of opinions California Courts Archived from the original on May 25 2017 Retrieved June 6 2017 4 Cal 399 1854 Traynor Michael The Infamous Case of People v Hall 1854 California Supreme Court Historical Society Newsletter Spring Summer 2017 2 13 Cal 24 1859 Lee Blewett 1899 The Constitutional Power of the Courts Over Admission to the Bar Harv L Rev 8 234 250 doi 10 2307 1323400 JSTOR 1323400 in which the Supreme Court said the legislature cannot require the court to issue opinions in writing 24 Cal 2d 453 150 P 2d 436 1944 32 Cal 2d 711 198 P 2d 17 1948 33 Cal 2d 80 199 P 2d 1 1948 68 Cal 2d 728 441 P 2d 912 69 Cal Rptr 72 1968 69 Ca 2d 33 442 P 2d 641 1968 69 Cal 2d 108 70 Cal Rptr 97 443 P 2d 561 1968 71 Cal 2d 954 80 Cal Rptr 354 1969 6 Cal 3d 628 100 Cal Rptr 152 493 P 2d 880 1972 11 Cal 3d 531 113 Cal Rptr 897 522 P 2d 305 1974 13 Cal 3d 804 119 Cal Rptr 858 532 P 2d 1226 1975 17 Cal 3d 425 551 P 2d 334 131 Cal Rptr 14 1976 18 Cal 3d 660 134 Cal Rptr 815 557 P 2d 106 1976 23 Cal 3d 899 592 P 2d 341 1979 aff d sub nomine Pruneyard Shopping Center v Robins 447 U S 74 100 S Ct 2035 64 L Ed 2d 741 1980 26 Cal 3d 588 607 P 2d 934 163 Cal Rptr 132 1980 48 Cal 3d 644 257 Cal Rptr 865 771 P 2d 814 1989 51 Cal 3d 120 271 Cal Rptr 146 793 P 2d 479 1990 26 Cal 4th 519 110 Cal Rptr 2d 4112 28 P 3d 151 2001 43 Cal 4th 885 183 P 3d 471 2008 43 Cal 4th 757 183 P 3d 384 76 Cal Rptr 3d 683 2008 44 Cal 4th 431 79 Cal Rptr 3d 312 187 P 3d 37 2008 51 Cal 4th 84 244 P 3d 501 119 Cal Rptr 3d 105 2011 Friedenberg Albert M 1902 Solomon Heydenfeldt A Jewish Jurist Of Alabama and California Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society 10 10 129 140 JSTOR 43059669 External links edit nbsp Media related to Supreme Court of California at Wikimedia Commons Supreme Court of California California Supreme Court Historical Society At the Lectern California Supreme Court Practice Blog37 46 50 N 122 25 04 W 37 7806 N 122 4178 W 37 7806 122 4178 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Supreme Court of California amp oldid 1184799831, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.