Kevin Frankel, left, and Christian Hochhausler, right, of McGuireWoods. Courtesy photos. The History and Continued Viability of California's Unpublished Cases Rule
"Surely a court would be better off with the benefit of a unique, on-point, but unpublished case than having to decide an issue in a vacuum," write Kevin Frankel and Christian Hochhausler of McGuireWoods.
May 14, 2024 at 04:30 PM
5 minute read
In California state court, under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(a), litigants are generally not permitted to cite unpublished California appellate or superior court opinions. Limited exceptions are available "when the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel." Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(a). Courts will also allow a party to cite an unpublished decision "if they are not 'relied on' as supporting authority," such as a citation to highlight a split of authority within the appellate courts. Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. Ch. 11-G (Rutter 2023). This rule means that the overwhelming majority of appellate caselaw is non-precedential and non-citable. As an example, from 2021 to 2022, only 10% of appellate court cases were published. Judicial Counsel of California, "2023 Court Statistics Report: Statewide Caseload Trends," 46 (2023).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
House Passes Bill to Add Federal Judgeships in Face of Biden Veto Threat
‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
Santa Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
4 minute read
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero Says Recent Drop in Straight Grants Isn't Permanent
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1‘BiT Global Lost’: Federal Judge Won’t Stop Coinbase From Delisting wBTC Token
- 2Some Elite Universities Favor Wealthy Students in Admissions Decisions, Lawsuit Alleges
- 3Judge Asks: Should Tom Girardi Serve Sentence in a Medical Facility or Behind Bars?
- 4EPA grants California authority to ban sales of new gas cars by 2035. Action faces reversal by Trump
- 5US to pay nearly $116M to settle lawsuits over rampant sexual abuse at California women's prison
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
