Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2018, Volume 31, Number 3
Content
- A Dozen Brilliant Litigation Strategies That Backfire in Arbitration
- Editor's Foreword: Full Courts
- From the Section Chair Looking back; looking forward
- Masthead
- New Liberty From Liability Insurance Coverage Worries
- Past Chairs of the Litigation Section
- Past Editors-in-Chief
- Resolving Discovery Disputes in Federal Courts
- Strengthening the Civil Jury
- Table of Contents
- Ten Tips for Writing a Winning Arbitration Brief
- The E-Word: Emotions, Women, and the Law
- The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption by Richard L. Hasen
- What Is Neutral-Driven Dispute Resolution (Ndr) and When Do I Need It?
- The California Supreme Court, 2017-2018: Coping With a Short Bench
The California Supreme Court, 2017-2018: Coping With a Short Bench
By Kirk C. Jenkins
For more than two decades, Professor Gerald Uelmen’s annual year-in-review article about the California Supreme Court’s work has been a highlight for those of us who practice in California. Professor Uelmen’s penetrating analysis and his pioneering use of analytics contributed immeasurably to our understanding of the Court. Professor Uelmen’s retirement leaves big shoes to fill with our review of the Court’s 2017-2018 judicial year ("JY2018"): September 1, 2017 to August 30, 2018.
JY2018 was dominated by the year-long vacancy in Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar’s seat. Despite anecdotal reports that the vacancy reduced the Court’s productivity, evidence of that is sparse. The Court decided 85 cases in JY2018—36 civil and 49 criminal— compared to 89 in JY2017 and 90 in JY2016. During the Court’s last extended vacancy in JY2015, the Court decided only 47 cases. Pro tem Justices cast 87 votes in JY2018 as compared to only 37 in JY2015.
[Page 4]