Supreme Court Oral Argument
Wednesday November 03, 2021
9:00 am - 3:30 pm

Supreme Court Oral Arguments for November 3, 2021

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



(1) Segal (Mickey) et al. v. ASICS America Corporation et al., S263569
View Argument | Opinion filed 1/13/22

The court limited review to the following issue: May a party recover costs for preparing multiple sets of trial exhibits and closing slides that were not used at trial?

(2) Jane Doe v. Olson (Curtis), S258498
View Argument | Opinion filed 1/13/22

This case presents the following issues: (1) Does the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b), apply to contract claims, and if so, under what circumstances? (2) Does an agreement following mediation between the parties in an action for a temporary restraining order, in which they agree not to disparage each other, bar a later unlimited civil lawsuit arising from the same alleged sexual violence?

(3)  Lawson (Wallen) v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., S266001
View Argument | Opinion filed 1/27/22

California Rules of Court rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: Does the evidentiary standard set forth in Labor Code section 1102.6 replace the rest of test of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 as the relevant evidentiary standard for retaliation claims brought pursuant to Labor Code section 1102.5?

(4)  People v. Tirado (Jose Guadalupe), S257658
View Argument | Opinion filed 1/20/22

This case presents the following issue: Can the trial court impose an enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b), for personal use of a firearm, or under section 12022.53, subdivision (c), for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm, as part of its authority under section 1385 and subdivision (h) of section 12022.53 to strike an enhancement under subdivision (d) for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm resulting in death or great bodily injury, even if the lesser enhancements were not charged in the information or indictment and were not submitted to the jury?

(5)  People v. Holmes (Karl Darnell), McClain (Herbert Charles) and Newborn (Lorenzo), [Automatic Appeal], S058734
View Argument | Opinion filed 1/31/22
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.