Newslinks for 7-10-19

Ex-Judges Face Skeptical Questions in Bid to Block Limits on Postretirement Appointments

July 09, 2019 | The Recorder
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman issued a tentative order Monday indicating he was apt to deny the retired judges’ request for a preliminary injunction barring the state from applying a 1,320-day service limit for the assigned judges program, which uses retired jurists to fill temporary judicial needs across the state.

Judge skeptical of retired judges’ age discrimination argument

July 10, 2019 | Daily Journal
(Subscription required) The retired judges are challenging changes to the Assigned Judges Program, which issues temporary judicial assignments to assist with staffing shortfalls, that went into effect Jan. 1. The changes would limit service to a total of 1,320 days.

Judge Unlikely to Block Cap on Temp Work by Retired California Judges

July 09, 2019 | Courthouse News Service
The judges’ lawsuit stems from sweeping changes Cantil-Sakauye made in 2018 to a longstanding program that assigns participating retired judges to courts left temporarily short-handed by illness, death, vacations and any other type of vacancy.

Annual Lawyer Fees Will Go Up, but Not as Much as State Bar Wanted

July 09, 2019 | The Recorder
The Assembly Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved amended legislation that includes the fee hike, which is significantly less than the $860 that bar leaders had sought at the beginning of the year. The $544 figure was crafted instead based on recent critical analyses of the bar’s proposals from the state auditor and the legislative analyst’s office.
Related: Daily Journal

Federal Appeals Court Rules for Trump in Emoluments Case

July 10, 2019 | New York Times
In a legal victory for President Trump, a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that profits earned by his Washington hotel while he is in office violate the Constitution.

Commentary: Local tax conflict heats up

July 09, 2019 | CALmatters
Two years ago, however, the state Supreme Court seemingly carved out a way for local governments to sidestep that law. It implied, in ruling on a Southern California marijuana case, that if special purpose tax measures are placed on the ballot by initiative petition, rather than by the local governments themselves, the two-thirds vote threshold might not apply.

Opinion: Supreme Court Needs to Decide Tax Vote Requirements for Initiatives

July 10, 2019 | Fox & Hounds
I can’t say I was surprised by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman’s ruling that two San Francisco tax increases for special purposes were valid despite receiving less than a two-thirds vote. A tax dedicated for special purposes needs a two-thirds vote, but a California Supreme Court decision in 2017 created confusion about the two-thirds vote requirement for taxes, opening the door for Shulman’s ruling.
Loading...
Oral Argument Webcast Archive button

California Courts on Twitter

Site Map | Careers | Contact Us | Accessibility | Public Access to Records | Terms of Use | Privacy