Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2016, Volume 29, Number 2
Content
- Editor's Foreword Baby Steps: On the Path to Full Publication?
- Overview of State Bar Court Procedure
- Table of Contents
- Sweet Little Lies
- Masthead
- Secondments: a View from the Inside-Out
- From the Section Chair
- It's Time to Replace Summary Depublication by the California Supreme Court with Something Better
- Cacis Compel Litigators to "Do It In Reverse"
- Past Editors-in-Chief
- Managing Your Litigation Team for the Ultimate Benefit of the Client
- We Must Promptly Restore Court Reporters to Trial Courts Throughout California
- Litigation Section Executive Committee Past Chairs
- Thinking Beyond the Assignment: Selection and Management of Expert Witnesses
- Trial Ethics: Witnesses
It’s Time to Replace Summary Depublication by the California Supreme Court with Something Better
By J. Anthony Kline and Jerome B. Falk, Jr.
Until recently, appellate opinions certified for publication were automatically depublished when the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review. Despite numerous recommendations and requests starting in the late 1970s to eliminate this unusual practice, the Supreme Court had repeatedly refused to do so. It therefore took many by surprise when, several months ago, the Supreme Court invited public comment on a proposal to eliminate automatic depublication upon the grant of review. On June 1, 2016, the court adopted a proposal to abandon the practice. This is a significant improvement — but it corrects only one part of the problem caused by depublication of Court of Appeal opinions.
[Page 4]
The Supreme Court retains the power to summarily depublish an opinion selectively even though it meets the requirements for publication under Rule of Court 8.1105 (c)(1)(9), regardless whether review was sought. This practice has been criticized even more strongly than the policy of automatic depublication upon the grant of a petition for review, which the Court has just abandoned.