NewsLinks is a collection of recent news items relating primarily to the California judicial branch. NewsLinks does not verify or endorse the accuracy or fairness of the news items, and the views expressed in opinions, editorials, and commentaries are those of the writers only. Some news articles linked from this page may require a subscription or be behind a paywall.

NewsLinks

  • Right to be Judged by Your Peers Made Possible by Jurors

    California Courts Newsroom
    May 11, 2026

    Juror Appreciation Week this year is May 11-15. It’s one way California courts recognize citizens for making the justice system work. Learn about initiatives to improve the juror experience in California.

  • A $10 fine. A Chinese laundry. And a [U.S.] Supreme Court ruling that still echoes today

    San Francisco Standard
    May 10, 2026

    The most important civil rights case most Americans have never heard of began in a San Francisco laundry shop, with a $10 fine and the men who refused to pay it. The case, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, decided by the Supreme Court on May 10, 1886, ruled unanimously in favor of the Chinese laundrymen, holding that everyone in the U.S., regardless of race or immigration status, is entitled to equal protection under the law.

  • Appeals court lets Palisades Fire claims against city, state proceed

    Daily Journal
    May 11, 2026

    (Subscription required) A California appellate court declined to review bids by the City of Los Angeles and the state seeking to block key Palisades Fire liability claims, allowing broader discovery to proceed in the coordinated litigation involving more than 10,000 residents, businesses and insurers.

  • Judge Lawrence Riff has an ambitious aim to tame discovery abuses

    Daily Journal
    May 11, 2026

    (Subscription required) By any measure, civil discovery is supposed to be the engine of truth in American litigation. In practice, however, over many years it has become something else entirely: bloated, combative, expensive and often untethered from the merits of the case. Now, a coalition led by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lawrence P. Riff is attempting something far more ambitious than another round of calls for civility. They are trying to change the culture itself.

  • LWOP Sentence Does Not Foreclose Resentencing Relief

    Metropolitan News-Enterprise
    May 11, 2026

    The Fifth District Court of Appeal held Friday that a murderer facing life in prison without the possibility of parole is entitled to a full resentencing hearing—at which a judge must consider “any changes in law that reduce [penalties] or provide for judicial discretion”—based on the fact that his sentence includes three one-year enhancements under a now-defunct scheme authorizing additional custody time for previous terms of incarceration.

  • Story in Trade Journal Is Sufficiently ‘Public’ for SLAPP Law

    Metropolitan News-Enterprise
    May 11, 2026

    Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge rightly granted anti-SLAPP motions filed by a journalist and an airline-insiders trade publication in a lawsuit filed by a small, regional carrier accusing them of libel over a story discussing a regulatory investigation into how the company logs flight hours for new pilots, rejecting the view that the purportedly esoteric topic and the intended audience are too limited to trigger the “public interest.”

  • 9th Circuit narrows bankruptcy trustee immunity in en banc ruling

    Daily Journal
    May 11, 2026

    (Subscription required) The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply limited the scope of immunity available to bankruptcy trustees, ruling in an en banc decision that a Chapter 7 trustee accused of failing to preserve estate assets could face personal liability.

  • Judge’s ‘Racist, Sexist’ Jokes Did Not Undermine Death Case

    Metropolitan News-Enterprise
    May 8, 2026

    The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed the denial of a death row inmate’s federal petition for habeas corpus based on allegations that the ex-Orange  Superior Court judge presiding over his trial violated due process principles by making what the petitioner characterized as racist and sexist jokes, describing the crime as “horrendous” and involving “dastardly conduct,” and quipping that “everyone should believe in the death penalty.”