The California Supreme Court is the last court in California state court. Its headquarters are headquartered in San Francisco and regularly hold sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. His decision is binding on all other California state courts.
Video Supreme Court of California
Composition
Under the original California Constitution of 1849, the Court began with a Supreme Court Justice and two Supreme Court Justices. The trial was extended to five judges in 1862. Under the current 1879 constitution, the Court expanded to six Supreme Court Judges and one Supreme Court Justice, for the current seven. Judges are appointed by the Governor of California and subject to retention elections.
According to the California Constitution, to be considered for appointment, a person must be a lawyer accepted to practice in California or has served as a California court judge for 10 years immediately prior to appointment.
To fill vacant positions, the Governor shall first submit the candidate's name to the California State Bar Judicial Nomination Judiciary Evaluation Commission, which prepares and returns a thorough and confidential evaluation of the candidate. Furthermore, the Governor formally nominates the candidate, which should then be evaluated by the Commission on the Judicial Appointment, comprising the Chair of the California Court, the California Attorney General, and a senior California High Court judge. The Commission holds public hearings and if satisfied with the qualification of candidates, affirms the nomination. The candidate can then immediately fill out existing vacancies, or replace the existing court at the beginning of the subsequent judicial period.
If a candidate is confirmed to fill vacancies that appear halfway through the judicial period, justice must stand for retention during the next election of the governor. Voters then decide whether to defend justice for the remainder of the judicial term. In conclusion, the judge must return to retention in the state for a full 12 year period. If the majority vote "no," the seat becomes empty and can be filled by the Governor.
Voters sometimes use the power not to defend the judge. Supreme Court Justices Rose Bird and Associate Justices Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin strongly opposed the death penalty and were subsequently dismissed in the 1986 general election. The newly re-elected governor George Deukmejian could then increase Judge Malcolm M. Lucas to Supreme Court Justices and appoint three new associate judges ( one to replace Lucas at his old post and two to replace Reynoso and Grodin).
Current membership
Three judges are currently appointed by the Republicans (Cantil-Sakauye, Chin, and Corrigan) and three by the Democrats (Liu, Cuà © llar, Kruger). There is one Philippine-American justice (Cantil-Sakauye), one Hispanic (CuÃÆ' © llar), one African-American (Kruger), two East Asian-American judges (Chin and Liu), and one non-Hispanic white justice Corrigan). Judges do not openly discuss their religious views or affiliations.
One justice earned a bachelor's degree from a University of California school, three from a private university in California, and two from a private university outside the state. Two legal judges obtained their law degree from the University of California law school, one from a law school at a California private university, and three from a law school at a private university outside the state.
Werdegar retired on 31 August 2017, and his seat is currently unfilled and awaiting nomination from Governor Jerry Brown. Werdegar seats have been vacant for 9 months and 27 days.
Structure
Between 1879 and 1966, the court was divided into two three-justice panels, Department One and Department Two. The Chief Justice divides the case equally between the panel and also decides which case will be heard en banc by the Court as a whole.
After the constitutional amendment in 1966, the Court is currently sitting "at the bank" (en banc) (the seven together) when hearing all the calls. When there is an open seat in court, or if a judge punishes himself for a particular case, a judge of the California Court of Appeals is commissioned by the supreme judge to join the court for individual cases in turn.
Procedures when all judges withdraw from cases vary from time to time. For a case in 1992, the supreme judge demanded the justice of the chair of a District Court of Appeals (different from the one in which the case originated) to elect six other High Court judges from his district, and they formed a High Court acting for that purpose. decide one case. However, in a more recent case in which all members of the Court resigned when Governor Schwarzenegger requested a warrant from the mandate of Schwarzenegger v. Court of Appeals (Epstein), seven Court of Appeals Court judges were selected on a regular rotational basis , not from the same district, with the most senior serving as the primary judge acting, and that the high court act finally refused a written request.
Maps Supreme Court of California
Operation
Jurisdiction
The California Constitution provides the Compulsory Court and exclusive jurisdiction of excuses in all cases that impose death penalty in California, although the Court has sponsored the constitutional amendment of the state to allow him to appeal the death penalty to the California Court of Appeals. The court has discretionary appeals jurisdiction over all cases reviewed by the Court of Appeals; the latter was created by a constitutional amendment of 1904 to free the Supreme Court of most of its workload so that the Court could then focus on efforts to deal with non-reckless objections involving important legal issues.
According to research by Judge Goodwin Liu, each year the Court has averaged 5,200 petitions for certiorari and 3,400 petitions for habeas corpus, plus 40 additional petitions from inmates who are already on the verge of death. In an average year the Court will decide to listen to 83 cases and will be required to adjudicate the appeals of 20 new inmates who join the death penalty. Each week, the Court voted in 150 to 300 petitions, paying special attention to the staff recommended by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.
Operation
The courts are open for business throughout the year (not just operating as long as the "provisions" are scheduled as are common in jurisdictions observing the legal year). Courts listen to oral arguments at least one week per month, 10 months each year (except July and August). Since 1878, have regularly heard oral arguments every year in San Francisco (four months), Los Angeles (four months), and Sacramento (two months).
According to Judge Liu, when a case was given a review, the Chief Justice assigned the case to court, which, after the parties completed the briefing, then prepared a draft opinion. Every justice writes an initial response to the draft opinion, and if the court assigned is a minority, he can ask the Chief Justice to hand the case back to someone in the majority. The court then hears the oral argument and, shortly thereafter, meets itself to vote. The California Constitution requires the suspension of a judge's salary if the Court fails to subsequently submit a decision within 90 days. The Court voted unanimously in 77% of cases, compared with 43% by the United States Supreme Court.
Throughout the year (including July and August), the judges have a conference every Wednesday, the Court does not hear oral arguments, with the exception of the last week, respectively, from November and December (Thanksgiving and New Year). New opinions are published online on Monday and Thursday morning at 10 am. Paper copies were also available through the clerk's office at that time.
The court is one of several US courts separate from the US Supreme Court enjoying the privilege of having its opinion routinely published in three hardcover journalists. The Court's Reporter of Decisions contracts with private publishers (currently LexisNexis) to publish official reporters, California Report , now in the fifth series; note that the serial number changes every time the publisher changes, although recent changes to the fifth series do not involve changes in the reporter. West published a California decision both in the California Reporter and in the second series and in the third series. (The New York Court of Appeal Opinion was also published in three journalists.)
Each justice has five assigned legal officers. Since the late 1980s, the Court has rejected the traditional use of legal clerks, and has turned to a permanent staff lawyer. Justwin Goodwin Liu, however, has returned to the traditional use of recent law school graduates as a one-year clerk. The court has about 85 staff attorneys, some of which are attached to certain judges; the remainder is divided as central staff. The advantage of this system is that reduced staff turnover (as opposed to traditional systems rotating through new law registrars each year) has increased the efficiency of the courts in dealing with complex cases, particularly in cases of capital punishment.
During the first half-century of operations, the Court struggled to cope with the burgeoning burden of cases that were so often left behind, until the California Court of Appeals was made in 1904. This resulted in the provisions of the 1879 Constitution forcing the Court to render all cases in writing for reasons given (to exclude small cases, it is often given a summary disposition with no excuses given) and requires California judges to state in writing each month that no issues raised for consideration have been overwhelming for more than 90 days, or they will not be paid. To comply with the latter provisions, the Court did not schedule oral arguments until the judges had learned the summary, formulated their respective positions, and disseminated the draft opinion. Then, once the matter is formally "debated and handed over", the judges can polish and release their opinions well before reaching the 90-day deadline. This is very different from the practice in all federal and other state appeals courts, where a judge may schedule an oral argument not long after the written brief is complete, but may then take months (or even years) after an oral argument to release an opinion.
Because the court was so full of cases before 1904, its decision in a few hundred small cases that should have been published was not published. A small group of lawyers end up doing a tedious task of plowing through the state archives to recover and collect that opinion, published in a separate seven volume journal called California Unreported Cases beginning in 1913. Regardless of name, case - the case deserves a precedent, as they will be published but for unorganized conditions in court at the time they are issued.
Additional responsibilities
The court oversees lower courts (including California court-level courts) through the California Justice Council, and also oversees California's legal profession through the State Bar of California. All acceptance and release of lawyers is made through the recommendation of the State Bar, which must then be ratified by the Supreme Court. The California Bar is the largest in the US with 210,000 members, of which 160,000 practice.
Reputation
As the Wall Street Journal says in 1972:
The state high courts over the last 20 years have won the reputation of being perhaps the most innovative of the state judiciary, setting precedents in the field of criminal justice, civil liberties, racial integration, and consumer protection that greatly affect other states and federal benches.
Statistical analysis performed by LexisNexis personnel at the request of the Court shows that the California Supreme Court decision is the most widely followed of any state supreme court in the United States. Between 1940 and 2005, 1,260 Courts' decisions were firmly followed by an out-of-state court (which meant that courts explicitly found Persuasive Court grounds and applied them to cases before them).
Many important legal concepts have been initiated or developed by the Court, including strict liability for defective products, fair procedures, negligent consequences of emotional distress, palimony, bad faith insurance, wrong living, and market share responsibility.
The major film studios in and around Hollywood and high-tech companies in Silicon Valley are both under the jurisdiction of the Court. Thus, the Court has ruled a number of cases by, between, and against those companies, as well as some cases involving Hollywood celebrities and high-tech executives.
The California Supreme Court and all lower California state courts use different writing styles and citation systems from federal courts and many other state courts. Quotations California has years between the names of the parties and references to case reporters, as opposed to the national standard (Bluebook) putting the year at the end. For example, the famous case of Marvin v. Marvin , which sets the standard for the ability of non-marital partners to demand their contribution to the partnership, is provided Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660 [134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106] in the California style, while it will be Marvin v. Marvin , 18 Cal. 3d 660, 557 P.2d 106, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815 (1976), in the style of Bluebook. California's quote style, however, has always been the norm of general legal jurisdiction outside the United States, including Britain, Canada and Australia.
While the US Supreme Court judges showed the opinion authors and who had "joined" with opinions at the outset, California judges always signed a majority opinion at the end, followed by "WE CONCUR," and then the names of the judges who joined. California judges have traditionally not supposed to use certain graceless terms in their opinion, which has led to a shameful quarrel between judges and state official reporter editors. California has traditionally avoided the use of certain French and Latin phrases like en banc , certiorari and mandamus , so California judges and lawyers use "in banks, "" reviews, "and" mandates "instead (although" in the bank "has become extremely rare after 1974).
Finally, the Court has the power to "invalidate" opinions by the Court of Appeals (as opposed to the federal practice of not publishing an "unpublished" opinion in the case of a federal reporter). This means that even though such opinion has been published in an official state reporter, it will only be binding on the parties. Stare decositions do not apply, and any new articulated rules will not be applied in future cases. Similarly, the California Supreme Court has the power to "publish" opinions by the California Court of Appeals that were originally unpublished.
Important case
Media related to the Supreme Court of California in Wikimedia Commons
- California Supreme Court
- California Supreme Court Historical Society
- In the Podium - The California Supreme Court Exercises Blog
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments