NewsLinks is a collection of recent news items relating primarily to the California judicial branch. NewsLinks does not verify nor endorse the accuracy or fairness of the news items, and the views expressed in opinions, editorials, and commentaries are those of the writers only.
A Los Angeles judge dealt a blow Tuesday to law enforcement unions trying to limit the scope of a landmark transparency law, ruling that records from shootings, use of force and some misconduct by police officers in California are public even if they occurred before the new law took effect this year.
The National Emergencies Act did not define what constitutes an “emergency.” The states’ lawsuit argues that Trump’s own words and a drop in the number of immigrants crossing the Mexican border without permission show no emergency exists.
(Subscription required) In a decision that significantly narrows an employee's remedies for wage and hour claims, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that an employee may not bring claims against a third-party payroll provider for breach of contract, negligence or negligent misrepresentation.
(Subscription required) The complaint, filed Monday, is one of several squarely taking on the deference traditionally shown to presidents in declaring emergencies. But the most-often cited relevant legal precedent may have been partially superseded by a more recent federal law, with neither one seeing such a significant court challenge in decades.
What if following that script means these suits challenging the emergency as beyond the president’s fiscal powers will do nothing to enlarge Congress’ control over the federal purse? What if instead it has the main effect of giving Trump an electoral boost in 2020?
(Subscription required) The judge’s research skills when mulling over pre-trial motions is one of the first traits noted by several lawyers. “She’ll go above and beyond doing her own research and pointing out cases that attorneys didn’t catch,” said Deputy District Attorney Judith Jane Stark-Modlin.
(Subscription required) With the state's top law enforcement official declining to retroactively disclose certain law enforcement personnel records, attorneys for media organizations and First Amendment nonprofits are mounting an equally litigious counter offense against police unions hunting for injunctions.
(Subscription required) A few months ago, I consulted on an upcoming Supreme Court argument -- by serving on a moot court panel for one of the advocates. The case turned on whether a county had erred in approving an environmental impact report (EIR).
(Subscription required) Judge Sanjay Kumar takes the bench only twice a month, but that doesn't mean he's short on cases. The rest of the time, the judge is reading transcript after transcript, brief after brief about why the outcome of a case should be reversed.
This past week, a Contra Costa County Superior Court judge denied a preliminary injunction sought by police unions that would have barred the release of police misconduct records created before January 1, 2019, the date SB 1421 went into effect.
The Friday filing is very unusual. Normally, the court files its opinions only on Mondays and Thursdays. As far as we can tell, it’s been seven years since an opinion filed on other than a regular filing day.
If citizen initiatives aren’t acts of “local government” when it comes to the timing of an election, does that mean they aren’t subject to Prop. 218’s other rules—namely, that tax measures need two-thirds of the vote to pass? Did the ruling rip a “huge hole in Prop 13 and 218,” as some initially suggested?
After two unfavorable rulings, Petaluma officials are hoping to plead their case to the California Supreme Court for millions of former redevelopment dollars that could potentially aid affordable housing projects or the Rainier crosstown connector.
Restorative justice is an increasingly popular alternative to traditional approaches to school discipline such as suspension and expulsion and is based on the offender making amends for the damage his or her behavior may have caused.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was back at the court on Friday for the justices’ private conference. Among the petitions the justices considered Friday is a request from the Trump administration to bypass a regional appeals court and review a lower court’s decision to block administration officials from adding questions about citizenship to the 2020 census.
In a summary of the advice, the California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions concluded the judicial officer may accept appointment by the Governor to serve on the advisory panel for the California State Library.
(Subscription required) In the past five years, 15 of California’s 20 nationally-accredited law schools have had dean turnover, which experts say is a testament to how difficult and demanding the job is.
(Subscription required) Our study of the three transitions suggests that anyone expecting a substantial shift in the court's jurisprudence with the appointment of Justice Joshua Groban is likely to be surprised, given that the remaining Republican appointees tend to be comparatively moderate and tend to agree with each other more consistently than their Democratic colleagues.
Under the former felony-murder law, anyone who aided in a crime that proved to be fatal could be charged with the same offense as the actual killer. The new law, SB1437 by Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which took effect this year, allows accomplices to be charged with murder only if they intended to kill or acted with “reckless indifference to human life” in aiding the killer.
Newsom has not taken a position on the dueling Dynamex-inspired bills. Last month he told reporters that his chief of staff, Ann O’Leary, a former Boies Schiller Flexner partner who advised tech and other corporate clients, “has a lot of ideas about a new committee to address the issues that led to the Supreme Court decision. … You’ll be hearing a lot more.”
The California attorney general’s office has fired back at two trucking groups’ legal challenges to a state Supreme Court ruling that may make it impossible for trucking companies to use independent contractor drivers in the state.