Supreme Court of California


Supreme Court of California
Supreme Court of California
CA SC seal.png
Seal of the Supreme Court of California
Established 1849
Jurisdiction California California
Location San Francisco, California
Authorized by California Constitution
Decisions are appealed to Supreme Court of the United States
Judge term length 12 years
Number of positions 7
Website Supreme Court of California
Chief Justice
Currently Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Since January 3, 2011
Lead position ends January 2, 2023
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

The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.[1]

Contents

Composition

Under the original 1849 California Constitution, the Court started with a Chief Justice and two Associate Justices. The court was expanded to five justices in 1862. Under the current 1879 constitution, the Court expanded to six Associate Justices and one Chief Justice, for the current total of seven. The justices are appointed to 12-year terms by the Governor of California and are subject to retention elections by the voters.[2]

Requirements

According to the California Constitution, to be considered for an appointment, 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.

Retention votes

After justices are appointed, they are subject to a retention vote at the next general election, and thereafter at 12-year intervals.

The electorate has occasionally exercised the power not to retain justices. 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. Newly reelected Governor George Deukmejian was then able to elevate Associate Justice Malcolm M. Lucas to Chief Justice and appoint three new conservative associate justices (one to replace Lucas in his old post and two to replace Reynoso and Grodin).

Current membership

The following table lists the current justices:

Position Name Born Appt. by Took office Prior positions
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye
Cantil-Sakauye, TaniTani Cantil-Sakauye
01959-10-19 October 19, 1959
(age &1000000000000005200000052)
Schwarzenegger, ArnoldArnold Schwarzenegger January 3, 2011 California Court of Appeal (Sacramento, 2005–2011); Sacramento County Superior Court (1997–2005); Sacramento Municipal Court (1990–1997); Deputy Legislative Secretary (1989–1990); Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary (1988–1989); Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney (1984–1988).
Associate Justice Kennard Kennard, Joyce L.Joyce L. Kennard 01941-05-06 May 6, 1941
(age &1000000000000007000000070)
Deukmejian, GeorgeGeorge Deukmejian April 5, 1989[3] California Court of Appeal (Los Angeles, 1988–1989); Los Angeles County Superior Court (1987–1988); Los Angeles Municipal Court (1986–1987).
Associate Justice Baxter Baxter, Marvin R.Marvin R. Baxter 01940-01-09 January 9, 1940
(age &1000000000000007100000071)
Deukmejian, GeorgeGeorge Deukmejian August 28, 1990[3] California Court of Appeal (Fresno, 1988–1991); Appointments Secretary (1983–1988).
Associate Justice Werdegar Werdegar, KathrynKathryn Werdegar 01936-04-05 April 5, 1936
(age &1000000000000007500000075)
Wilson, PetePete Wilson June 3, 1994[3] United States Department of Justice; Director, Criminal Law Division, California Bar Continuting Education; Senior Staff Attorney, Supreme Court of California.
Associate Justice Chin Chin, MingMing Chin 01942-08-31 August 31, 1942
(age &1000000000000006900000069)
Wilson, PetePete Wilson March 1, 1996[3] California Court of Appeal (San Francisco, 1990–1996); Alameda County Superior Court (1990).
Associate Justice Corrigan Corrigan, CarolCarol Corrigan 01948-08-16 August 16, 1948
(age &1000000000000006300000063)
Wilson, PetePete Wilson January 4, 2006[3] California Court of Appeal (San Francisco, 1994–2006); Alameda County Superior Court (1990–1994).
Associate Justice Liu Liu, GoodwinGoodwin Liu 01970-10-19 October 19, 1970
(age &1000000000000004100000041)
Brown, JerryJerry Brown September 1, 2011[4] Associate Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law (2008–2011); Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law (2003–2011).

Six current justices were appointed by Republicans (Cantil-Sakauye, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan) and one by a Democrat (Liu).

There is one Filipino-American justice (Cantil-Sakauye), one Eurasian-American justice (Kennard - Dutch father, Chinese mother), two East Asian-American justices (Chin and Liu), and three European-American justices (Baxter, Corrigan, and Werdegar). Kennard is the only justice with a visible physical disability; she has an artificial leg. The justices do not publicly discuss their religious views or affiliations.

There are four female justices (Cantil-Sakauye, Kennard, Werdegar, and Corrigan) and three male justices (Baxter, Chin, and Liu).

All seven justices earned undergraduate degrees from California universities (2 from a University of California campus, 1 from a California State University campus, and 4 from private universities). Three justices earned their law degrees from a UC law school, 2 from law schools at California private universities, and 2 from law schools at out-of-state private universities.

Name Appt. by College Law school
Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Chief Justice) Schwarzenegger UC Davis UC Davis
Joyce L. Kennard Deukmejian USC USC
Marvin R. Baxter Deukmejian CSU Fresno UC Hastings
Kathryn Werdegar Wilson UC Berkeley GW Law School
Ming Chin Wilson USF USF
Carol Corrigan Schwarzenegger Holy Names UC Hastings
Goodwin Liu J. Brown Stanford Yale

Structure

Between 1879 and 1966, the court was divided into two three-justice panels, Department One and Department Two.[5] The Chief Justice divided cases evenly between the panels and also decided which cases would be heard en banc by the Court sitting as a whole.

After a constitutional amendment in 1966, the Court currently sits as a whole (all seven together) when hearing all appeals. 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. 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 or her district, and they formed an "acting" Supreme Court for the purpose of deciding that one case.[6] However, in a more recent case where all members of the Court recused themselves when Governor Schwarzenegger sought a writ of mandate from the Supreme Court (Schwarzenegger v. Court of Appeal (Epstein)), seven justices of the Courts of Appeal were selected, but 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.[7]

Operation

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

The Court has exclusive and direct appellate jurisdiction in all California state death penalty cases, although it has sponsored a state constitutional amendment to allow it to assign death penalty appeals to the California Courts of Appeal.[8] It 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 actually involved important issues of law.[9]

Operation

The Court is open for business year-round (as opposed to operating only during scheduled "terms" as is customary in some eastern U.S. states). The Court hears oral argument at least one week per month, ten months each year (the exceptions are July and August). Since 1874, it has regularly heard oral argument each year at San Francisco (four months), Los Angeles (four months), and Sacramento (two months).

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 fourth series; note that the series number changes whenever the publisher changes. 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.)

Since the late 1980s, the Court has turned away from the traditional use of law clerks, and has switched to permanent staff attorneys.[10] The Court has about 85 staff attorneys, some of whom are attached to particular justices; the rest are shared as a central staff. 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. This resulted in provisions in the 1879 state constitution forcing the Court to decide all cases in writing with reasons given[11] (to get rid of minor cases, it had often given summary dispositions with no reasons given) 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.[12] To comply with the latter provision, the Court simply does not schedule oral argument until the Justices have already studied the briefs, formulated their respective positions, and circulated draft opinions. Then, after the matter is formally "argued and submitted", the Justices can polish and release 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 up to a year after oral argument to release opinions.

Ancillary responsibilities

The Supreme Court supervises the lower courts (including the trial-level Superior Courts of California) through the Judicial Council of California, and also supervises California's legal profession through the State Bar of California. All lawyer admissions and disbarments are done through recommendations of the State Bar, which then must be ratified by the Supreme Court. California's bar is the largest in the U.S. with 210,000 members, of whom 160,000 are practicing.

Reputation

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.[13]

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.[14] 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 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 increasingly rare since approximately 1960).

Finally, the California Supreme 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).[15] This means that even though the opinion has already been published in the official state reporters, it will be binding only upon the parties.[16] 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.[15]

Important cases

As noted above, the Court has handed down many important and influential decisions, of which some are listed below (ordered by date descending). Most of the decisions listed below were landmark decisions that were the first such decisions in the U.S. or the world.

In Houston v. Williams,[17] an important[18] early case about the separation of powers under state constitutions, the already-overworked Court overruled as unconstitutional a statute directing the Court to give the reasons for its decisions in writing. This resulted in the aforementioned clause in the 1879 state constitution requiring the Court to decide all cases in writing with reasons stated.

In Bernhard v. Bank of America,[19] the Court held that collateral estoppel could apply in favor of a party who was not involved in a prior action.

In Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,[20] 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.

In Perez v. Sharp,[21] 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).

In Summers v. Tice,[22] 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.

In Sei Fujii v. California,[23] the Court invalidated the California Alien Land Law of 1913 as unconstitutional.

In De Burgh v. De Burgh,[24] the Court abolished the defense of recrimination in divorce cases.

In Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co.,[25] the Court created the modern tort of insurance bad faith, or in more formal terms, the tort of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the context of insurance policies.

In Drennan v. Star Paving Co.,[26] Justice Traynor wrote a majority opinion adopting the then-emerging doctrine of promissory estoppel as an alternative to breach of contract where a contract had never actually been formed.

In Lucas v. Hamm,[27] the Court held that it is not a breach of the ordinary duty of care for an attorney to accidentally draft a will in violation of the rule against perpetuities.

In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.,[28] Justice Traynor wrote a majority opinion adopting the rule of strict liability for defective products he had suggested 19 years earlier. Since then, strict liability for defective products has been adopted (in varying forms) in nearly all U.S. states, Australia, Japan, and the European Union.

In Seely v. White Motor Co.,[29] the Court created the economic loss rule, under which strict liability for defective products is unavailable when the defect causes purely economic damage; that is, such liability is available only for physical injuries to human beings.

In Dillon v. Legg,[30] the Court radically expanded the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress beyond its traditional form, which historically had been limited to plaintiffs standing in the same "zone of danger" as a relative who was killed.

In Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage Co,[31] the Court held that extrinsic evidence of trade usage or custom is admissible to determine whether a facially clear contract is actually ambiguous, thus necessitating the use of extrinsic evidence to determine its actual meaning. The complex two-step test set forth in Pacific Gas and Electric has been heavily criticized[32] for severely undermining the parol evidence rule, but is still the law in California.

In Rowland v. Christian,[33] 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.

In People v. Anderson,[34] 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.

In Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co.,[35] the Court dramatically expanded insurance bad faith from its original home in third-party insurance to cover first-party insurance as well. Insurers and insurance of all types in California were now subject to tort liability for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In Li v. Yellow Cab Co.,[36] the Court embraced comparative negligence as part of California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence.

In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California,[37] 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.

In Marvin v. Marvin,[38] 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.

In People v. Wheeler,[39] the Court held that it was a violation of the federal and state constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury for a prosecutor to select a jury in a racially biased manner. The holding of Wheeler became the law of the land in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Batson v. Kentucky (1986).

In Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court,[40] the Court found an implied private right of action to enforce a key provision of the state Unfair Practices Act, California Insurance Code Section 790.03, even though the statute lacked an express private right of action. This highly controversial decision authorized insurance policyholders to sue insurance companies for any violation of the claims handling statutes or regulations, no matter how minor or technical. In response to the inevitable explosion of frivolous lawsuits against insurers which flooded California state courts during the 1980s, the American insurance industry joined forces with death penalty supporters and backed their successful effort to eject Chief Justice Rose Bird and two allies from the Court in 1986.

In Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center,[41] 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.

In Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories,[42] the Court imposed market share liability on the makers of fungible hazardous products.

In Turpin v. Sortini,[43] the Court became the first state supreme court to allow a cause of action for wrongful life.

In Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies,[44] the Court overruled its controversial decision in Royal Globe and held that there was no implied private right of action to enforce the Unfair Practices Act against insurance companies. This restored the pre-Royal Globe status quo, so that only the state Insurance Commissioner had the power to go after insurance companies for minor claims handling problems. However, policyholders were not left totally helpless, since insurance companies who committed egregious claims handling violations could still be sued for breach of contract or insurance bad faith.

In Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.,[45] the Court limited tort liability for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the insurance context and refused to apply it to an employer.

In Thing v. La Chusa,[46] 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.

In Moore v. Regents of the University of California,[47] the Court held that patients do not have intellectual property rights in profits from medical discoveries made with their body parts.

In American Acad. of Pediatrics v. Lungren,[48] the Court struck down a law requiring parental consent for abortions requested by and performed on minors. Chief Justice George, in an plurality opinion joined by Justices Chin and Werdegar, stated that the parental consent law violated privacy protections that were voted into the state Constitution in 1972. Justice Kennard concurred as to disposition and wrote a separate concurring opinion mostly agreeing with the plurality opinion by Chief Justice George. Justices Mosk, Baxter, and Brown all dissented in separate opinions.

In Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court,[49] the Court declined to allow a tort cause of action against a nonparty to a lawsuit for intentional spoliation of evidence that could have been relevant to the lawsuit.

In In re Marriage of Bonds,[50] the Court held that Barry Bonds's premarital agreement was enforceable and valid.

In Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Saderup,[51] the Court upheld the constitutionality of the California Celebrities Rights Act which provided a posthumous right of publicity for deceased celebrities, and thereby affirmed a judgment in favor of the heirs of the Three Stooges.

In Wendland v. Wendland,[52] 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.

In In re Marriage Cases,[53] 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.

In Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc.,[54] the Court held that the method of statutory analysis applied in its 1989 Moradi-Shalal decision also applies to all California statutes, including California's anti-tip-pooling statute, Labor Code Section 351. Thus, California statutory rights may be enforced by private litigants only when the Legislature has written an express private right of action into the statute itself, or there is clear evidence of the legislative intent to allow such a right.

Notable former justices

List of Chief Justices

# Name Term
1 Serranus Clinton Hastings (1850–1852)
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–present)

See also


References

  1. ^ Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 2d 450 (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."
  2. ^ Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court Los Angeles Times November 2008 "The court's members serve 12-year terms and appear on the ballot unopposed in retention elections. Opponents could try to unseat them during their retention elections or try to mount a recall."
  3. ^ a b c d e Bowen, Debra, Justices of the California Supreme Court, California Secretary of State, http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2010-elections/calendar/pdfs/section-6-supreme-appellate-justices.pdf, retrieved 2010-11-23 
  4. ^ Thompson, Don (September 1, 2011). "Brown swears in new Calif. Supreme Court justice". Associated Press. The Sacramento Bee. http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/01/3878501/brown-swears-in-new-calif-supreme.html. Retrieved September 1, 2011. 
  5. ^ See People v. Kelly, 40 Cal. 4th 106, 113 (2006), which explains the 1879 constitutional convention's decision to create a seven-justice court with two three-justice departments.
  6. ^ Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc., 2 Cal. 4th 342 (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.
  7. ^ "California Courts - Appellate Court Case Information". Judicial Council of California. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1965249&doc_no=S189114. Retrieved January 3, 2011. 
  8. ^ http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR76-07.PDF
  9. ^ See Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 754, 767-768 (2000).
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ California Constitution, Article 6, Section 14.
  12. ^ California Constitution, Article 6, Section 19.
  13. ^ Joann Lublin, "Trailblazing Bench: California High Court Often Points the Way for Judges Elsewhere," Wall Street Journal, 20 July 1972, 1.
  14. ^ Jake Dear and Edward W. Jessen, " Followed Rates" and Leading State Cases, 1940-2005, 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 683, 694(2007).
  15. ^ a b Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105 (2007)
  16. ^ Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115 (2007)
  17. ^ 18 Cal. 24, 73 Am. Dec. 565 (1859).
  18. ^ A Harvard Law Review article called Houston the leading case on the separation of state judicial and legislative powers. See Blewett Lee, "The Constitutional Power of the Courts Over Admission to the Bar," 8 Harv. L. Rev. 234, 250 (1899).
  19. ^ 19 Cal.2d 807, 122 P.2d 892 (1944).
  20. ^ 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944).
  21. ^ 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948).
  22. ^ 33 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948).
  23. ^ 38 Cal.2d 718, 242 P.2d 617 (1952).
  24. ^ 39 Cal. 2d 858, 250 P. 2d 598 (1952).
  25. ^ 50 Cal. 2d 654, 328 P.2d 198 (1958).
  26. ^ 51 Cal. 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958).
  27. ^ 56 Cal. 2d 583, 15 Cal. Rptr. 821, 364 P.2d 685 (1961).
  28. ^ 59 Cal. 2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal. Rptr. 697 (1963).
  29. ^ 63 Cal. 2d 9, 403 P.2d 145, 45 Cal. Rptr. 17 (1965).
  30. ^ 68 Cal. 2d 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal. Rptr. 72 (1968).
  31. ^ 69 Cal. 2d 33, 69 Cal. Rptr. 561, 442 P.2d 641 (1968).
  32. ^ See Trident Center v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 847 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1988) and Jeffrey W. Stempel, Stempel on Insurance Contracts, 3rd ed., § 4.02, 4-9, n.16 (2006).
  33. ^ 69 Cal. 2d 108, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P. 2d 561 (1968).
  34. ^ 6 Cal. 3d 628, 100 Cal. Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880 (1972).
  35. ^ 9 Cal. 3d 566, 108 Cal. Rptr. 480, 510 P.2d 1032 (1973).
  36. ^ 13 Cal. 3d 804, 119 Cal. Rptr. 858, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975).
  37. ^ 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1976).
  38. ^ 18 Cal. 3d 660, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106 (1976).
  39. ^ 22 Cal. 3d 258, 148 Cal. Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (1978).
  40. ^ 23 Cal. 3d 880, 153 Cal. Rptr. 842, 592 P.2d 329 (1979).
  41. ^ 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).
  42. ^ 26 Cal. 3d 588, 607 P.2d 934, 163 Cal. Rptr. 132 (1980).
  43. ^ 31 Cal. 3d 220, 643 P.2d 954, 182 Cal. Rptr. 337 (1982).
  44. ^ 46 Cal. 3d 287, 250 Cal. Rptr. 116, 758 P.2d 58 (1988).
  45. ^ 47 Cal. 3d 654, 765 P.2d 373, 254 Cal. Rptr. 211 (1988).
  46. ^ 48 Cal.3d 644, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814 (1989).
  47. ^ 51 Cal. 3d 120, 271 Cal. Rptr. 146, 793 P.2d 479 (1990).
  48. ^ 16 Cal. 4th 307, 940 P.2d 797, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 210 (1997).
  49. ^ 20 Cal. 4th 464, 469, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 852, 976 P.2d 223 (1999).
  50. ^ 24 Cal. 4th 1, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 252, 5 P.3d 815 (2000).
  51. ^ 25 Cal. 4th 387, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 126, 21 P.3d 797 (2001).
  52. ^ 26 Cal. 4th 519, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 4112, 28 P.3d 151 (2001).
  53. ^ 43 Cal. 4th 757, 183 P.3d 384, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683 (2008).
  54. ^ 50 Cal.4th 592, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 498, 236 P.3d 346 (2010).

External links

Media related to Supreme Court of California at Wikimedia Commons

Coordinates: 37°46′50″N 122°25′04″W / 37.780543°N 122.417902°W / 37.780543; -122.417902


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Supreme Court of Nevada — Jurisdiction United States …   Wikipedia

  • Supreme Court of Pennsylvania — Judges seats in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court s chambers in the Pennsylvania State Capitol Established May 22, 1722 …   Wikipedia

  • Supreme Court of the United States — Cour suprême des États Unis  Pour les autres articles nationaux, voir Cour suprême. Bâtiment de la Cour suprême …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Supreme Court of the United States — Infobox High Court|court name = Supreme Court of the United States imagesize = 150px caption = established = 1789 country = United States location = Washington, D.C. coordinates= coord|38|53|26.55|N|77|00|15.64|W|display=inline,title type =… …   Wikipedia

  • Supreme Court of Missouri — Missouri Supreme Court State Seal of Missouri Established 1841 Jurisdiction Missouri …   Wikipedia

  • Supreme Court of Ohio — Ohio Supreme Court Seal of the Supreme Court of Ohio Established 1841 Jurisdiction O …   Wikipedia

  • Supreme Court of Mississippi — Mississippi Supreme Court Established 1841 Jurisdiction Mississippi , United States …   Wikipedia

  • Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia — West Virginia Supreme Court Seal of the West Virginia Supreme Court Established 1863; 1872 Jurisdiction West Virginia …   Wikipedia

  • Supreme Court — noun the highest federal court in the United States; has final appellate jurisdiction and has jurisdiction over all other courts in the nation (Freq. 2) • Syn: ↑Supreme Court of the United States, ↑United States Supreme Court • Topics: ↑law,… …   Useful english dictionary

  • supreme court — noun the highest court in most states of the United States • Syn: ↑state supreme court, ↑high court • Topics: ↑law, ↑jurisprudence • Hypernyms: ↑court, ↑tribunal, ↑ …   Useful english dictionary