| California Supreme Court | |
 |
|
| Court Details | |
|---|---|
| Established in: | 1849 |
| Jurisdiction: | California  , United States  |
| Location: | San Francisco, California |
| Authorized by: | California Constitution |
| Decisions are appealed to: | Supreme Court of the United States |
The Supreme Court of California is the state supreme court of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco, and regularly holds sessions at its branch offices in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.[1]
Contents |
Current justices
- Ronald M. George, (since 1991), appointed by Gov. Wilson; elevated to Chief Justice in 1996
- Marvin R. Baxter, (since 1991), Associate Justice; appointed by Gov. Deukmejian
- Ming W. Chin, (since 1996), Associate Justice; appointed by Gov. Wilson
- Carol A. Corrigan, (since 2006), Associate Justice; appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger
- Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice; appointed by Gov. Deukmejian
- Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice; appointed by Gov. Davis
- Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice; appointed by Gov. Wilson
Makeup of the Court
Six justices were appointed by Republicans (George, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan) and one by a Democrat, Moreno.
There are two Asian-American justices (Chin and Kennard), one Hispanic justice (Moreno), and four white justices (George, Baxter, Corrigan, and Werdegar).
The justices come from principally Roman Catholic and Protestant denominations, but do not publicly discuss their religious views.
Kennard, a leg amputee, is the only justice with a physical disability.
Organization
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 twelve-year terms by the Governor of California and appear unopposed on ballots during retention elections.[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 ten 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 twelve-year intervals.
The electorate has occasionally exercised the power to not 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-elected Governor George Deukmejian was then able to elevate Associate Justice Malcolm M. Lucas to Chief Justice and appoint three new conservative associate justices.
Structure
Between 1879 and 1966, the court was divided into two three-justice panels, Department One and Department Two.[3] The Chief Justice divided cases evenly between the panels and also decided which panels 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 recused 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.
Jurisdiction
The court has direct mandatory 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.[4] 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.[5]
Operation
The Court is open for business year-round. 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.
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 are then routinely ratified by the Supreme Court. California's bar is the largest in the U.S. with 210,000 members, of whom 160,000 are actively practicing.
Reputation
As the Wall Street Journal explained 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.[6] | ” |
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.[7] 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).
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 write "in bank," "review," and "mandate" instead.
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).[8] This means that even though the opinion has already been published in the official state reporters, it will be binding only upon the parties.[9] 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.[8]
Notable past justices
- Serranus Clinton Hastings, Chief Justice (1850-1852) (First Chief Justice, founded Hastings College of the Law)
- Solomon Heydenfeldt, Associate Justice (1852-1857) (First Jewish justice to be elected by direct vote of the people.)
- David S. Terry, Chief Justice (1857-1859) (Attempted 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)
- 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 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals)
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-present) |
References
- ^ 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."
- ^ 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."
- ^ 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.
- ^ http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR76-07.PDF
- ^ See Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 754, 767-768 (2000).
- ^ 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(2007).
- ^ a b Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105 (2007).[1]
- ^ Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115 (2007).[2]
External links
- Supreme Court of California is at coordinates Coordinates:
|
||||||||||||||
Gay USA Highlight: December 23, 2008
Andy's away in London this week, so Barbara Raab sits in for him, joining Ann. Predictably, having taped last week's show before the news broke about Rick Warren delivering the Invocation at Barack Obama's Inauguration, we spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing that story this week, reviewing the chronology, showing you Warren's anti-Proposition 8 video, his "Dateline" interview condemning all sexual activity by gay people, Obama's press conference defending his choice, and Warren's latest video defense/attack. Before all that, we discuss the stunning news from California where Attorney General Jerry Brown changed his mind and submitted a brief to the California Supreme Court OPPOSING Proposition 8, with an elegant argument. In other news: Caroline Kennedy appears to support marriage equality The Declaration on Homosexuality is submitted to the United Nations, and the United States finds a ridiculous reason not to sign on The Mayor of Hobart, Tasmania, Australia delivers a moving apology to the LGBT community
Author: freespeechtv
Keywords: "Gay USA" "free speech tv" "us politics" LGBTQ "gay rights" "civil rights" "social welfare" sexuality "human rights" "proposition 8" "barack obama" "rick warren" news media "independent media"
Added: January 5, 2009
Re: Why Gay Marriage is WRONG
Video Cam Direct Upload
Author: talkytom
Keywords: gay marriage california supreme court equality homosexual homosexuality fag queer dyke civil union same-sex legalizes proposition eight prop
Added: January 4, 2009
Pomona Supreme Courthouse Seymour Amster California Lawyer
Attorney Seymour I. Amster will fight for you in the Pomona Superior Court in Los Angeles County. For criminal defense representation in California, call 800-972-1740 or visit http://www.lacriminaldefenders.com
Author: FindLaw
Keywords: amster angeles attorney california county courthouse criminal defense lawyer los nuys pomona seymour supreme van
Added: December 30, 2008
Iowa Gay Marriage Case
An attorney for a half dozen gay couples challenging Iowas same-sex marriage ban argued today before the state supreme court that the law violates his clients constitutional rights. Scott Drake talks with Howard Law Prof. Aderson Francois who wrote an amicus brief comparing these cases to past interracial marriage struggles.
Author: LBNstudio
Keywords: aderson argument attorney ban broadcast california constitutional court drake francois gay interracial iowa lawyer lbn legal marriage network rights "same sex" supreme
Added: December 30, 2008
EMS Leadership Topics, Episode 9 - The Good Samaritan
The California Supreme Court last week kicked the Good Samaritan in the clusters. How does their ruling impact fire and EMS crews around the country? Listen to this 9:48 podcast to hear Dana's take, on episode 9 of EMS Leadership Topics.
Author: danalove
Keywords: EMS Leadership Topics Virginia California Supreme Court Good Samaritan ambulance service fire
Added: December 30, 2008