CASE DISPOSITIONS BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

• NCJ Number: 63117
• Journal: California Law Review Volume: 67 Issue: 4 Dated: (JULY 1979) Pages: 788-823
• Author(s): R A SCOTT; K J WEGNER
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 36 pages
• Corporate Author: University of California
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THREE ALTERNATIVE CASE DISPOSITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ARE PROPOSED; SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT AND THE COURT'S EVOLUTIONARY ROLE ARE HIGHLIGHTED.

Abstract

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IS CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS; ITS ROLE IN THE JUDICIAL STRUCTURE IS TO SUPERVISE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CALIFORNIA LAW. IT SERVES THIS ROLE BY RESOLVING IMPORTANT AND NOVEL LEGAL ISSUES AND ALSO BY SUPERVISING THE COURTS OF APPEAL. THE OVERLOAD OF APPELLATE LITIGATION HAS FORCED THE COURT TO CONFINE ITS ATTENTION TO 'GREAT AND IMPORTANT' CASES, THEREFORE UNDERMINING THE SUPERVISORY FUNCTION. CURRENTLY, THE COURT INVESTS A GREAT DEAL OF TIME REVIEWING PETITIONS FOR HEARING. THE PROPOSALS CONTAINED HEREIN WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE AT THIS JUNCTURE, THEREBY ALLOWING IT TO TAKE GREATER ADVANTAGE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES ALREADY INVESTED IN PETITIONS FOR HEARING. PROPOSED PRACTICES INCLUDE RETRANSFER TO THE COURTS OF APPEAL WITH DIRECTIONS, COMMENT UPON DENIAL OF HEARINGS, AND COMMENT UPON DECERTIFICATION OF COURT OF APPEAL OPINIONS. ALL PRACTICES ARE FEASIBLE AND ARE PREMISED UPON THE FACT THAT THE COURT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TO GRANT A FULL HEARING IN EVERY CASE. REGARDING THE FIRST PROPOSAL, RETRANSFER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHENEVER, IN REVIEWING A PETITION FOR HEARING, THE SUPREME COURT'S ATTENTION BECOMES FOCUSED UPON A CLEAR, PREJUDICIAL ERROR BY THE TRIAL COURT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETECTED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. DENIAL WITH COMMENT WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE AS A MEANS OF EVALUATING PUBLISHED APPELLATE OPINIONS AS PRECEDENT. DECERTIFICATION OF APPELLATE OPINIONS IS APPROPRIATE WHERE THE OPINION CONTAINS LANGUAGE WHICH IS AN ERRONEOUS STATEMENT OF LAW. ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROCEDURES WOULD ALLOW THE SUPREME COURT TO MONITOR MORE CLOSELY THE COURTS OF APPEAL AND WOULD ENSURE THAT THE APPELLATE REVIEW CONFORMS TO THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE SUPREME COURT. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. (LWM)