Tuesday January 05, 2021
9:00 am - 4:30 pm
Supreme Court Oral Arguments for January 5, 2021
(Click the play icon) To view with the case information, visit here.
(1) In re Humphrey (Kenneth) on Habeas Corpus, S247278
View Argument | Opinion filed 3-25-21
The court limited review to the following issues:(1) Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that principles of constitutional due process and equal protection require consideration of a criminal defendant’s ability to pay in setting or reviewing the amount of monetary bail? (2) In setting the amount of monetary bail, may a trial court consider public and victim safety? Must it do so? (3) Under what circumstances does the California Constitution permit bail to be denied in noncapital cases? Included is the question of what constitutional provision governs the denial of bail in noncapital cases — article I, section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), or article I, section 28, subdivision (f)(3), of the California Constitution — or, in the alternative, whether these provisions may be reconciled.
(2) Brown (Yazmin) et al. v. USA Taekwondo et al., S259216
View Arguments | Opinion filed 4-1-21
This case presents the following issue: What is the appropriate test that minor plaintiffs must satisfy to establish a duty by defendants to protect them from sexual abuse by third parties (See Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108; Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278; Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607; Doe v. United States Youth Soccer Association (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1118; Conti v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1214; Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377.)
(3) Smith (Jeremiah) v. LoanMe, Inc., S260391
View Argument | Opinion filed 4-1-21
This case includes the following issue: Does Penal Code section 632.7 prohibit only third-party eavesdroppers from recording calls involving a cellular or cordless telephone, or does it also prohibit participants in calls from recording them without the other participants’ consent?
(4) Villanueva (Manny) et al. v. Fidelity National Title Company, S252035
View Arguments | Opinion filed 3-18-21
The court limited review to the following issues:(1) Insurance Code section 12414.26 provides: “No act done, action taken, or agreement made pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 5.5 (commencing with Section 12401) or Article 5.7 (commencing with Section 12402) of this chapter shall constitute a violation of or grounds for prosecution or civil proceedings under any other law of this state heretofore or hereafter enacted which does not specifically refer to insurance.” Does this statute provide immunity to an underwritten title company for charging consumers for services for which there have been no rate filings with the Insurance Commissioner? Stated otherwise, by charging unfiled rates, did Fidelity act “pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 5.5?” (2) Does the Insurance Commissioner have exclusive jurisdiction over any action against an underwritten title company for services charged to the consumer, but not disclosed to the Department of Insurance?
(5) In re A.R., S260928
View Argument | Opinion filed 4-5-21
The court limited review to the following issues:(1) Does a parent in a juvenile dependency case have the right to challenge her counsel’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal from an order terminating her parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26? (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317.5, subd. (a); In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635 [ineffective assistance of counsel claim in dependency proceeding brought on a petition for writ of habeas corpus].) (2) If so, what are the proper procedures for raising such a claim?
(6) Kaanaana (David) et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., S253458
View Arguments | Opinion filed 3-29-21
The court limited review to the following issue: Should the phrase “work done for irrigation, utility, reclamation, and improvement districts, and other districts of this type” in Labor Code section 1720, subdivision (a)(2), of California’s Prevailing Wage Law (Lab. Code, § 1720 et. seq.) be interpreted to cover any type of work regardless of its nature, funding, purpose or function, including belt sorting at recycling facilities?