This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The statement "[f]inally, California courts have the power to 'depublish' their opinions..." is not correct. Only the California Supreme Court has the power to depublish an opinion. Most appellate opinions that come from the District Courts of Appeal are not published. The appellate courts do not have the power to depublish any opinions.
These are the rules of the game. "All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 976 (a).)
Opinions of a Court of Appeal or a Superior Court Appellate Division (which handle appeals from limited civil cases) are published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certify the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 976 (b).)
The Supreme Court may order that an opinion certified for publication is not to be published or that an opinion not certified is to be published. The Supreme Court may also order publication of an opinion, in whole or in part, at any time after granting review. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 976 (e).) This is part of the depublishing power of the California Supreme Court.
Probably 90 percent of the attorneys who practice law in California do not understand this power, and it is a power unique to the California Supreme Court. The doctrine of stare decisis still applies in California, however, other litigants are forbidden from relying on an unpublished case or a depublished case as authority. "[A]n opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 977 (a).)
Because all California Supreme Court opinions are published, all California Supreme Court opinions can be cited, and therefore are binding under the doctrine of stare decisis. By exercising its power to depublish opinions, the California Supreme Court is able to control common law development in California without having to grant a review hearing and ordering the case, the parties, and any appellate materials to come before it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.77.102 ( talk) March 26, 2005
How is it that of all the current justices on the court, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar is the only one who doesn't have a Wikipedia article of her own? 24.6.66.193 ( talk) 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
While she was born in Indonesia, that country was, at the time, the Dutch East Indies, and the fact she speaks English with a Dutch accent (less than one percent of Indonesians speak Dutch as their primary language), combined with her characteristically Dutch appearance (as can be seen in the photo provided at this link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/kennard.htm), it does not seem accurate to characterize her as "Asian," unless we are going to start calling South African Boers "Black." Its also interesting to note that she was apparently born in a Japanese concentration camp on Java, and it was generally the Dutch colonials in Indonesia who were so interned. I am not aware of the precise ethno-lineage of Justice Kennard, and so while I suppose its possible she may have some Indonesian ancestry (presumably on her mother's side, as per her surname), I think its reasonable to conclude that her characterization as "Asian" was simply a mistake innocently made by someone who noted the fact she was born in Indonesia. KevinOKeeffe ( talk) 08:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't understand why someone would say that a list of important cases of the court is an arbitrary collection of facts. The influence that a court has is through its cases. This page is not complete without listing some of the more notable ones. Abortion is clearly a significant issue and my guess is that this case is among the most important couple of California cases on that subject in recent times, so let's put it in. (K. the Surveyor on insecure machine) 69.228.47.186 ( talk) 08:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If we are really going to hash out all of the encyclopedically notable California Supreme Court cases (and I think we should), then eventually this list will overwhelm the article, and will need to be broken out into its own article. Actually, it may already be substantial enough to justify this treatment. Regarding American Academy of Pediatrics specifically, there are cases that are notable for their impact on the law, and cases that are notable for their news value, even if their legal significance is insubstantial. There are at least dozens of books that mention this case. bd2412 T 05:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
To restart this important case discussion, I've tagged the section as OR. Most of the cases listed simply give the case name, a case citation, and then the editor's spin on what the case is all about. Most of these mentions lack any WP:RS. I've added an WP:OR tag to the section with the hope that clean up will occur. (Also, I've down-graded the Project Law assessment to Start Class). But if not improvement is made, these cases should be deleted.-- S. Rich ( talk) 05:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:GoodwinLiu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:GoodwinLiu.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
Currently, it reads that the court is "the highest of the courts of California." I found that to be unnecessarily awkward and changed it to "the highest court in California." I was reverted by Int21h with the following edit summary: "no, every federal court is a 'higher' court 'in' California".
It is, of course, true that there are federal courts in California. However, none of them is "higher" than any state court, including trial courts. The two jurisdictions are separate. The only federal court higher than the California Supreme Court is the U.S. Supreme Court. (I won't go into the exceptions in which federal courts can compel California courts to take certain actions based on the federal constitution. I believe those are usually based on collateral judgments, not direct.)
We do want to be precise. Therefore, I suggest the following language: "the highest state court in California."-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I recently updated the chart of current justices to include a category noting when the justice's judicial term will expire. While this is pretty straightforward for all currently appointed justices, in the case of a future vacancy, it may provide a source of confusion for readers. As briefly discussed in the composition section, if a justice is appointed to fill a vacancy that arose in the midst of a judicial term, that justice must stand for retention during the next gubernatorial election to serve out the remainder, if any, of their predecessor's term. If retained, that justice must again stand for retention at the end of his predecessor's term after either four or eight years.
This has led to confusion surrounding Justice Liu's tenure. Retired Justice Moreno was retained to a 12-year term in 2010, but left the bench in early 2011. His successor, Liu, prevailed in a retention election in 2014, but that will only carry him through to the end of Moreno's initial 12-year term, which expires in 2023. In this case, the question would be how to portray Liu's "term" from 2011 to when he was required to stand for retention in 2014. Listing 2023 would be confusing for readers who know he is standing for retention in 2014, while listing 2014 as the expiration of the judicial term is inaccurate.
One potential change would be to add a category for when the next retention election would be, though that would, in practice, be redundant for all sitting justices. Another thought would be to replace term expiration dates with retention election dates and make a note for when the election is to complete the remaining four or eight years of a predecessor's term. Other ideas? -- Js489991 ( talk) 17:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Joshua Groban is not in Justices list yet. 2601:647:4200:D900:F199:4A48:D3FF:311B ( talk) 00:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)