Search results

Hearing will be webcast live from the California Courts Newsroom starting at 1 p.m.

Praised for his "brilliant intellect, first-class temperament, and boundless humanity," Justice Jenkins makes history as the first openly gay California Supreme Court justice and only the third African American man to serve on the state’s highest court.

Thousands more law school graduates with qualifying prior bar exam scores will be able to work as fully licensed attorneys after completing supervised practice hours.

A state Supreme Court committee issued an advisory opinion explaining when a judge may accept campaign contributions from a political action committee when the contribution includes funds from another political action committee organized and funded by court employees.

Forty attorneys from the California Supreme Court and First Appellate District in San Francisco joined forces this year to log hundreds of hours of volunteer legal work.

A look back at highlights of the court's 2018-2019 year.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed his first state budget on Thursday, which includes nearly $470 million in new judicial branch funding to continue the courts’ steady recovery after years of deep cuts.

Fellow California Supreme Court justices paid tribute to Justice Chin before his last oral argument, which was held by videoconference.

The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) issued oral advice that judges must follow a new law prohibiting compensation for solemnizing a marriage--legislation effective January 1, 2017, changes the law.

The Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) issued oral advice that a judge may administer the oath of office to a newly elected district attorney. CJEO Oral Advice Summary 2016-018 concludes that because judges are authorized by law to administer the oath of office that all public office holders are required to take under the California Constitution, doing so is an official function of judicial office.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court's Williams v. Pennsylvania case applies a disqualification standard for former prosecutors similar to earlier California Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinions (CJEO) advice—CJEO extends its advice to service in a prior conviction.