With Carol Corrigan’s arrival, California Chief Justice Ronald George gained an ally on some very close decisions. But the newest justice was nobody’s lapdog. For the lowdown on the high court’s year, read our 2006 wrap-up.


They also couldn’t discern any legal trends. Unlike last year when the justices tackled a series of same-sex issues involving discrimination and parenting, the court’s rulings this year represented a mishmash, with no specialized area of law predominating.

There were a handful of rulings on ballot measures, a couple regarding disqualification of prosecutorial offices, some noteworthy anti-SLAPP decisions, an important hostile workplace case and a controversial decision on tribal immunity from lawsuits.

One case court watchers thought stood out in 2006 was Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (.pdf). The unanimous ruling in April held that coarse language used in a creative process doesn’t create a hostile workplace as long as it’s not directed at a specific person. The case involved a suit against script writers for the popular television sitcom “Friends.”

Appellate specialist Paul Fogel, a partner in Reed Smith’s San Francisco office, said that ruling, by Justice Marvin Baxter, made the point that the context of the comments and the nature of the work are important.

“For example,” he said, “[Baxter] noted that [while] vulgar or sexually disparaging language may be relevant to show gender discrimination, it is not sufficient to establish actionable conduct. Nor is the mere use of crude or inappropriate language or behavior in front of employees that is not directed toward the plaintiff or women in general.”

A few other cases from the past year that grabbed experts’ attention were:

  • Frye v. Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc., 38 Cal.4th 23 (.pdf), in which the court voted 7-0 that nonprofit legal corporations are not required to register with the State Bar as law firms.


  • Evans v. City of Berkeley, 38 Cal. 4th 1 (.pdf), which unanimously held that cities can require groups to abide by non-discrimination policies if they wish to have free use of public facilities.


  • City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, 38 Cal.4th 839 (.pdf), in which the court ruled 5-2 that a government law office must be disqualified from a case when the agency head has a conflict of interest.


  • Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s LLC, 39 Cal.4th 223 (.pdf), and Branick v. Downey Sav-ings and Loan Association, 39 Cal.4th 235 (.pdf). In unanimous decisions, the court clarified Proposition 64, which limits private attorney general suits.


  • Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (State of California), 39 Cal.4th 1164 (.pdf), which held unanimously that charter schools are “persons” for purposes of being sued under the state’s False Claims Act.


  • The Copley Press Inc. v. Superior Court (County of San Diego), 39 Cal.4th 1272 (.pdf), a 6-1 ruling that said the California Public Records Act doesn’t require disclosure of civil service commission records regarding an officer’s disciplinary proceedings.


  • Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Superior Court (Fair Political Practices Commission), 06 C.D.O.S. 11719 .pdf), in which the court held 4-3 that tribal immunity from lawsuits is trumped by states’ right to regulate their political process.


  • Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (.pdf), a 7-0 decision that said people who republish defamatory content online cannot be held liable for defamation even if they were forewarned.


  • Barrett was one of the high court’s rare ventures into Internet law. In fact, Oakland-based appellate specialist Jon Eisenberg points out it’s only the court’s second ruling in that realm, the first being Intel v. Hamidi, 30 Cal.4th 1342.

    That 2003 ruling held that companies besieged by unwanted e-mail can only invoke the state’s trespass-to-chattels law if the messages cause actual damage.

    “You would expect a lot more Internet litigation getting to the California Supreme Court. And it’s not yet,” said Eisenberg, a partner in Eisenberg and Hancock. He can’t guess how many the court might have rejected.

    “If they don’t take them,” he added, “then shame on them. It’s one of the biggest issues in the country.”