Litigation
Cal. Litig. 2021, Volume 34, Number 3
Content
- A Lion in Winter: Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace at 92
- California LITIGATION
- Can California Protect Employees from Entering into Mandatory Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements and Avoid Federal Preemption?
- Chevron Corp. v. Donziger and Paying the Piper
- Dirty Harry Turns 50: What If Harry Had Worn a Body Cam?
- EDITOR'S FOREWORD No Longer on Demand
- Flood v. Kuhn: Paving the Way for Athletic Bargaining and Free Markets
- From the Section Chair
- "Isn't that Special": The Limited Powers of Special Masters
- "Present at the Creation"
- She's No Rookie: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett Emerges as a Key Influencer in Her First Term
- Table of Contents
- Three Recent Decisions on Section 998 Settlement Offers
- The California Supreme Court, 2020-2021: Tracking the Impact of the Pandemic
The California Supreme Court, 2020-2021: Tracking the Impact of the Pandemic
By Kirk C. Jenkins
Kirk C. Jenkins is Senior Counsel at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in San Francisco, and is the President of the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers.
Although there was comparatively little time in Judicial Year 2019-2020 for the coronavirus pandemic to impact the Court’s workload given that a national emergency was not declared until March 2020, the story of the California Supreme Court for JY2021 was the same as the dominant story for nearly everyone around the world: coping with the pandemic.
The pandemic’s impact was clear in the JY2021 data. The Court’s production of opinions was down sharply: only 56 decisions — 37 criminal and only 19 civil. This compares to 77 decisions in JY2020 (43 criminal, 34 civil), 75 in JY2019 (43 criminal, 32 civil), 85 in JY2018 (49 criminal, 36 civil) and 90 in JY2017 (44 criminal, 46 civil). Thus, the Court’s workload was down 28% in a single year. The explanation isn’t difficult to fathom. Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy trial, which at least somewhat limits a trial judge’s ability to postpone trial dates. Civil parties have no correlative right. Accordingly, the Court’s criminal production was down only about 14%, while civil cases dropped 42% from the two preceding years.