Supreme Court of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court in the courts of the State of California. It resides inside the Earl Warren Building in San Francisco, overlooking Civic Center Square along with City Hall.[1] It also holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.[2]

Supreme Court of California
Seal of the Supreme Court of California
LocationSan Francisco (Headquarters)
Los Angeles
Authorized byCalifornia Constitution
Appeals toSupreme Court of the United States
Judge term length12 years; renewable
Number of positions7
WebsiteOfficial website
Chief Justice
CurrentlyTani Cantil-Sakauye
SinceJanuary 3, 2011
Lead position endsJanuary 2, 2023


Under the original 1849 California Constitution, the Court started with a chief justice and two associate justices.[3] 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.[4] The justices are appointed by the Governor of California and are subject to retention elections.[5]

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.[6]

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.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] 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.[11] 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).[12]

Current membership

Position Name Born Appt. by Took office / Length of service Term expires Education, prior positions
Chief Justice
Tani Cantil-Sakauye
October 19, 1959
(age 60)
Arnold Schwarzenegger
January 3, 2011
8 years, 11 months
January 1, 2023
UC Davis, UC Davis; 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
Ming Chin
August 31, 1942
(age 77)
Pete Wilson
March 1, 1996
23 years, 9 months
January 1, 2023
USF, USF; California Court of Appeal (San Francisco, 1990–1996); Alameda County Superior Court (1988–1990).
Associate Justice
Carol Corrigan
August 16, 1948
(age 71)
Arnold Schwarzenegger
January 4, 2006
13 years, 11 months
January 2, 2031
Holy Names, UC Hastings; California Court of Appeal (San Francisco, 1994–2006); Alameda County Superior Court (1990–1994).
Associate Justice
Goodwin Liu
October 19, 1970
(age 49)
Jerry Brown
September 1, 2011[13]
8 years, 3 months
January 3, 2027
Stanford, Oxford, Yale; Associate Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law (2008–2011); Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law (2003–2011).
Associate Justice
Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar
July 27, 1972
(age 47)
Jerry Brown
January 5, 2015
4 years, 11 months
January 3, 2027
Harvard, Yale, Stanford; Special Assistant to the President, Justice and Regulatory Policy, White House Domestic Policy Council (2009–2010); Professor, Stanford Law School (2001–2014); Institute Director, Center Co-Director, and Program Director, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University (2004–2015).
Associate Justice
Leondra Kruger
July 28, 1976
(age 43)
Jerry Brown
January 5, 2015
4 years, 11 months
January 2, 2031
Harvard, Yale; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice (2013–2014); Assistant to the Solicitor General and Acting Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Solicitor General, United States Department of Justice (2007–2013); Private practice (2004–2006).
Associate Justice
Joshua Groban
August 15, 1973
(age 46)
Jerry Brown
January 3, 2019
11 months
January 3, 2022
Stanford University, Harvard Law School; law clerk, S.D.N.Y (1998–1999); private practice (2005–2010); counsel Brown campaign (2010); general counsel to California Governor (2010–2018)

Four current justices were appointed by Democrats (Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger, Groban) and three by Republicans (Cantil-Sakauye, Chin, and Corrigan). There is one Filipino-American justice (Cantil-Sakauye), one Hispanic (Cuéllar), one African-American (Kruger), two East Asian-American justices (Chin and Liu), and two non-Hispanic white justices (Corrigan, Groban). The justices generally do not publicly discuss their religious views or affiliations; however, in December 2018, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye announced that she was leaving the Republican Party.[14]

One justice earned an undergraduate degree from a University of California school, four from private universities in California, and two from out-of-state private universities. Two justices earned their law degrees from a University of California law school, one from a law school at a California private university, and four from law schools at out-of-state private universities.

The most recent addition to the court is Associate Justice Joshua Groban, replacing Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, who retired on August 31, 2017.[15] Governor Jerry Brown nominated Groban on November 14, 2018;[16] he was confirmed on December 21, and was sworn into office on January 3, 2019.[17] He joined the court when it reconvened on January 8.[18]


Between 1879 and 1966, the court was divided into two three-justice panels, Department One and Department Two.[19] 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 "in bank" (en banc) (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.[20] 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.[21] 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.[22] 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.[23]



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.[24] 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.[25]

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.[26] 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.[26] 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.[26]


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). 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.[26] 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.[26] The Court then hears oral arguments and, immediately afterwards, meet alone to vote.[26] The California Constitution requires suspension of the justices' salaries if the Court fails to then file a decision within 90 days.[26][27] The Court issues unanimous opinions in 77% of cases, compared to 43% by the Supreme Court of the United States.[26]

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 law clerks.[26] Since the late 1980s, the Court has turned away from the traditional use of law clerks, and has switched to permanent staff attorneys.[28] Justice Goodwin Liu, however, has returned to the traditional use of recent law school graduates as one-year clerks.[26] The Court has about 85 staff attorneys, some of whom are attached to particular justices; the rest are shared as a central staff.[29][30] 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.[19] This resulted in provisions in the 1879 Constitution forcing the Court to decide all cases in writing with reasons given[31] (to get rid of minor cases, it had often given summary dispositions with no reasons given[19]) 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 would not be paid.[32][33] To comply with the latter provision, the Court 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 months (or even a year) after oral argument to release opinions.

Because the court was extremely overloaded with cases prior to 1904, its decisions in several hundred minor cases that should have been published were not published. A small group of lawyers eventually undertook the tedious task of plowing through the state archives to recover and compile those opinions, which were published in a separate seven-volume reporter called California Unreported Cases starting in 1913.[34] Despite its name, those cases are citable as precedent, since they would have been published but for the court's disorganized condition at the time they were issued.

Ancillary responsibilities

The Court supervises the lower courts (including the trial-level California superior courts) 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.[35][36]


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.[37]

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.[38] 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[39] and high-tech executives.[40]

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).[41] This means that even though the opinion has already been published in the official state reporters, it will be binding only upon the parties.[42] 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.[41]

Important cases

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 the first such decisions in the United States or the world.

  • People v. Hall (1854),[43] 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.”[44]
  • Houston v. Williams (1859),[45] a leading case on the separation of powers[46] under the California Constitution.
  • Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944),[47] 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),[48] 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),[49] 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),[50] 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.
  • Rowland v. Christian (1968),[51] 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. 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

List of chief justices

1Serranus Clinton Hastings1850–1852
2Henry A. Lyons1852
3Hugh C. Murray1852–1857
4David S. Terry1857–1859
5Stephen J. Field1859–1863
6W.W. Cope1863–1864
7Silas W. Sanderson1864–1866
8John Currey1866–1868
9Lorenzo Sawyer1868–1870
10Augustus L. Rhodes1870–1872
11Royal T. Sprague1872
12William T. Wallace1872–1879
13Robert F. Morrison1879–1887
14Niles Searls1887–1889
15William H. Beatty1889–1914
16Matt I. Sullivan1914–1915
17Frank M. Angellotti1915–1921
18Lucien Shaw1921–1923
19Curtis D. Wilbur1923–1924
20Louis W. Myers1924–1926
21William H. Waste1926–1940
22Phil S. Gibson1940–1964
23Roger J. Traynor1964–1970
24Donald R. Wright1970–1977
25Rose Elizabeth Bird1977–1987
26Malcolm M. Lucas1987–1996
27Ronald M. George1996–2011
28Tani Cantil-Sakauye2011–present

See also


  1. "Contact Us - supreme_court". Retrieved 2019-09-27.
  2. 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."
  3. "Records of the Constitutional Convention of 1849". California Secretary of State. Retrieved September 27, 2017. Art. VI, Sec. 3.
  4. "California Constitution". California Legislature. Retrieved September 27, 2017. Art. VI, Sec. 2, 16(a).
  5. Levinson, Jessica A. (May 8, 2014). "Op-Ed: Why voters shouldn't be electing judges". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  6. "Codes Display Text". Retrieved 2016-02-07.
  7. "Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation". State Bar of California. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  8. "Commission on Judicial Appointments". California Courts. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  9. Article VI, Section 16 of the Constitution of California (1879)
  10. "Judicial Selection in the States". National Center for State Courts. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  11. "What Does California's Experience with Recall of Judges Teach Us?". SCOCAblog. UC Berkeley Constitution Law Center and Hastings Law Journal. November 10, 2016. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  12. 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. Retrieved 24 December 2015.
  13. Thompson, Don (September 1, 2011). "Brown swears in new Calif. Supreme Court justice". The Sacramento Bee. Associated Press. Retrieved September 1, 2011.
  14. Hernández, Lauren (December 13, 2018). "California's Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye leaves the GOP, registers as no-party-preference voter -". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved January 9, 2019.
  15. "Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar Announces Retirement from State Supreme Court". Judiciary of California. March 8, 2017.
  16. Koseff, Alexei (November 14, 2018). "Jerry Brown picks a new California Supreme Court justice". The Sacramento Bee. Retrieved November 14, 2018.
  17. "Brown swears in fourth justice to California Supreme Court". The Sacramento Bee. Associated Press. January 4, 2019. Retrieved January 4, 2019.
  18. Dinzeo, Maria (December 21, 2018). "Brown Adviser Groban Confirmed to California High Court". The Courthouse News Service. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  19. 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.
  20. In a 1972 case, Mosk v. Superior Court, 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."
  21. 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.
  22. "California Courts – Appellate Court Case Information". Judicial Council of California. Retrieved January 3, 2011.
  23. "California Courts – Appellate Court Case Information". Judicial Council of California. Retrieved October 19, 2018.
  24. "Press release: Supreme Court Proposes Amendments To Constitution in Death Penalty Appeals" (PDF). California Courts. November 19, 2007. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  25. See Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 754, 767–768 (2000).
  26. Justice Goodwin Liu (2014). "How the California Supreme Court Actually Works" (PDF). UCLA Law Review. 61: 1246. Retrieved 10 June 2016.
  27. "From the Bench: Supreme Justice Paterson Resigns". San Francisco Call (75 (139)). California Digital Newspaper Collection. April 28, 1894. 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
  28. 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.
  29. "Press release: State Judicial Staff Attorneys Can Now Help Bridge the Justice Gap". California Courts. May 9, 2016. Retrieved June 29, 2017. Collectively, California's Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal employ over 400 staff attorneys.
  30. "Alumni News: Carin Fujisaki '85 Named Principal Attorney to Chief Justice of CA". University of California Hastings College of the Law. June 11, 2015. Retrieved June 29, 2017. The Supreme Court is a hive of activity, employing approximately 80 lawyers.
  31. California Constitution, Article 6, Section 14.
  32. California Constitution, Article 6, Section 19.
  33. Sloss, Frank H. (1958). "M. C. Sloss and the California Supreme Court". California Law Review. 46: 715, 718, fn 5. 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.
  34. 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. San Francisco, CA: Bender-Moss Company. Retrieved June 29, 2017.
  35. Flaherty, Kristina (September 2007). "State Bar celebrates its 80th anniversary". California Bar Journal. Retrieved June 29, 2017.
  36. Cooper, Cynthia L. (Winter 2008). "Women Bar Presidents: Changing the Picture and Focus of Leadership" (PDF). Perspectives Magazine. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association: 9. 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.
  37. Joann Lublin, "Trailblazing Bench: California High Court Often Points the Way for Judges Elsewhere," Wall Street Journal, 20 July 1972, 1.
  38. Jake Dear and Edward W. Jessen, " Followed Rates" and Leading State Cases, 1940–2005, 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 683, 694(2007).
  39. See, e.g., NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, 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.
  40. See, e.g., Reid v. Google, Inc., 50 Cal. 4th 512, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 327, 235 P.3d 988 (2010). This was Brian Reid's age discrimination lawsuit against Google.
  41. "Rule 8.1105. Publication of appellate opinions". California Courts. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  42. "Rule 8.1115. Citation of opinions". California Courts. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  43. 4 Cal. 399 (1854)
  44. Traynor, Michael. "The Infamous Case of People v. Hall (1854)". California Supreme Court Historical Society Newsletter (Spring/Summer 2017): 2.
  45. 13 Cal. 24 (1859)
  46. Lee, Blewett (1899). "The Constitutional Power of the Courts Over Admission to the Bar". Harv. L. Rev. 8 (234): 250. JSTOR 1323400. in which the Supreme Court said the legislature cannot require the court to issue opinions in writing.
  47. 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944).
  48. 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948).
  49. 33 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948).
  50. 68 Cal. 2d 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal. Rptr. 72 (1968).
  51. 69 Cal. 2d 108, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P. 2d 561 (1968).
  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: 129–140. JSTOR 43059669.

Media related to Supreme Court of California at Wikimedia Commons

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.