Supreme Court Oral Argument
Tuesday June 01, 2021
9:00 am - 3:30 pm

Supreme Court Oral Arguments for June 1, 2021

(Click the play icon) To view with the case information, visit here.

All opinions are now posted.



(1) Daly (Michael Gomez) et al. v. Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County et al., S260209
View Argument | Opinion filed 8-9-21

This case includes the following issues: (1) Are a judgment and the enforcement of an accompanying writ of mandate automatically stayed by the perfection of an appeal as a mandatory injunction when they direct a county’s board of supervisors to rescind its appointment of a supervisor based on the finding that the process by which the supervisor was appointed violated the Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.)? (2) Did plaintiffs properly challenge real party in interest’s appointment as Third District Supervisor by a petition for writ of mandate under Government Code section 54960.1, subdivision (a), or was an action in quo warranto (Code Civ. Proc., § 803 et seq.) the exclusive procedure for such a challenge?

(2) Gonzalez (Luis) v. Mathis (John R.) et al., S247677
View Argument | Opinion filed 8-19-21

This case includes the following issue:  Can a homeowner who hires an independent contractor be held liable in tort for injury sustained by the contractor’s employee when the homeowner does not retain control over the worksite and the hazard causing the injury was known to the contractor? 

(3) Walker (Jeffrey) v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (People, Real Party in Interest), S263588
View Argument | Opinion filed 8-30-21

This case presents the following issue: Did the superior court violate the rule of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 — that an expert cannot relate case-specific hearsay unless the facts are independently proved or covered by a hearsay exception — by relying on case-specific hearsay contained in psychological evaluations in finding probable cause to commit petitioner under the Sexually Violent Predator Act? 

(4) Skidgel (Tamara) v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, S250149
View Argument | Opinion filed 8-19-21

This case presents the following issue:  Are In Home Supportive Services workers (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 12300 et seq.) who are providers for a spouse or a child eligible for unemployment insurance benefits?

(5)  People v. Wycoff (Edward Matthew), [Automatic Appeal], S178669
View Argument | Opinion filed 8-23-21

This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.