Authors: Jeremy Rosen, Thomas Gede
State High Court | Judicial Selection Process | Legal Authority |
---|---|---|
General
Interim Vacancies
|
Latest News
- California court rules against baker in revival of same-sex wedding cake disputes - CalMatters
- California Fire Insurance Ruling Spurs Policyholder Pushback (1) - Bloomberg Law
- Arson is not equal to murder: California Supreme Court should overturn death row verdict | Opinion - Sacramento Bee
- California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 22, Allows App-Based Drivers to Keep Working as Contractors - The Federalist Society
- Supreme Court rebuffs Trump admin bids to pause EPA cases - E&E News
- US Supreme Court will not pause California emissions case amid Trump policy shifts - Reuters
- Death penalty case of Esperanza Fire arsonist reaches California Supreme Court - Courthouse News Service
- California Supreme Court Returns to Sacramento for Oral Argument - California Courts Newsroom
- California Supreme Court won’t take up Vail Resorts labor lawsuit - Vail Daily
- Court Approves Amendments to Policies and Payment Guidelines for Appointed Counsel in Capital Cases - California Courts Newsroom
Scholarship & White Papers
Public Opinion Research
-
Rule of Law or Rule of Judges (or Both)?
San Francisco Lawyers Chapter, 8 October 2008 – Event Audio
Featuring: Bob Egelko, Thomas Gede, Timothy Sandefur, Gerard Uelmen
-
California’s 17200 – Its Use and Abuse
San Diego Lawyers Chapter, 19 May 2010 – Event Audio/Video
Featuring: Jeremy Rosen, H. Scott Leviant, Shaun Martin, William Stern, Michael Orfield, Adam Van Sustersen
Media & Commentary
-
California Supreme Court Upholds Law Dissolving Redevelopment Agencies
In California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos the California Supreme Court upheld a law dissolving the state’s redevelopment agencies, while simultaneously striking down the agencies’ last vestige of hope, a pay-to-play companion bill. The court’s December 2011 decision thereby eliminated the state’s redevelopment agencies entirely.
-
California: Traditional Marriage Proponents Have Standing When Public Officials Refuse to Defend It
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made headlines recently when a divided panel declared unconstitutional California’s Proposition 8, which affirmed that the state would recognize marriages only between one man and one woman.1 Before the Ninth Circuit could decide the merits, however, it had to deal with the fact that state officials had all declined to defend the law.2 In the district court below, the law was defended by the official proponents of Proposition 8, the organizers who put it on the 2008 ballot. On appeal, the plaintiffs attacking the law argued that its proponents lacked standing to defend it in court; to resolve any doubts about its jurisdiction, then, the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the California Supreme Court.
-
California Supreme Court Broadly Construes Unfair Competition Law
The principal consumer protection statute in California, known as the Unfair Competition Law (UCL),1 provides remedies against unfair competition, which the statute defines as “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”2 In recent decades, courts have construed this language broadly to encompass a host of business practices under the “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” rubric.3 Counterbalancing this interpretive breadth, the remedies available under the UCL are limited. A plaintiff can seek injunctive relief or restitutionary disgorgement, but may not recover compensatory or punitive damages.
-
Gay Marriage Update: New England, Iowa, Wisconsin, and California
Litigation regarding gay marriage and other gay rights issues continues throughout the several states, and it is increasingly likely that the Supreme Court of the United States will rule on whether the United States Constitution guarantees a right to gay marriage. This article, a synopsis of the status of gay marriage in various states, analyzes recent court decisions in hopes of illuminating the relevant legal arguments. This article also highlights the most well-organized efforts and key players in the campaigns to legalize gay marriage at the state level.
-
California 17200: Its Nature, Function, and Limits – Remarks by William L. Stern
The forces that in 2004 gave rise to Prop 64 are, in microcosm, the same forces that are driving a larger debate about class actions that is being played out on the national stage. Th at debate is worthy of Socrates. But instead of debating the nature of Truth or Beauty, this contest might be better entitled, “What is the Nature and Purpose of Class Actions?”
-
California 17200: Its Nature, Function, and Limits – Remarks by Scott Leviant
The debate surrounding use of the Unfair Competition Law, or UCL, has been framed by commentators favoring its curtailment as a choice between a deterrence model, where theoretical over-compensation is possible, and a tort model, where all class actions are viewed as a collection of individual actions. While this is an interesting framework in which to discuss the divergent positions of the defense and the plaintiff bar (as proxies, generally for consumer and corporate interests respectively), the dichotomy leaves important concepts out of that dialogue. Moreover, there are a broader set of interests that are at play in the ongoing struggle over the UCL: interests that extend well beyond the unfair competition law.
-
California 17200: Its Nature, Function, and Limits – Remarks by Jeremy Rosen
In the last couple of years I have had many clients who have told me that they have either moved significant parts of their operations out of California or have made conscious decisions not to have any further expansion in California, but instead expand in other states. These decisions are made for a number of reasons, but primarily because of (1) California’s very pro-employee employment laws, (2) because the impact of section 17200, and (3) California’s fiscal crisis. Obviously the fiscal crisis and employment laws of California could be the subject of weeks of depressing discussion, but today we are focusing on Section 17200.
-
California 17200: Its Nature, Function, and Limits – Remarks by Shaun Martin
The change in 2004 with Proposition 64 was a microcosm of what was going on in the nation. Prop 64 codified that you cannot sue unless you lost money and property. Absent this, there was no standing. How we approach standing has changed in the last twenty years and Prop 64 illustrates this.
-
A Survey of California Furlough Lawsuits
The current economic crisis is forcing states to adopt creative means of balancing their budgets. California is again at the vanguard.1 The state has raised taxes, issued IOUs, and made deep budget cuts in numerous aspects of state government.2 Those efforts, however, have not been enough to bring the budget into balance. As a result, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger acted on his own authority to furlough state workers in an effort to save money.3 The Governor’s furlough decisions have resulted in the filing of numerous lawsuits, which are being resolved in conflicting ways by the California trial courts.