Supreme Court Grants Review in Jury Trial Case

Yesterday the California Supreme Court granted review in Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court, which raises the issue of when a jury trial is required in tax refund cases. Our earlier post on the Court of Appeal's decision (which had held in favor of a jury trial) is here.

Filing Foreign Lawsuit Not Protected By Anti-SLAPP Statute

In Geussous v. Chrome Hearts (here), the court held that filing a lawsuit in a foreign country does not constitute protected conduct under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16. The constitution protects the right to petition one's own government, said the court, not a foreign government.

Why Is A Part-Time Legislature A Bad Idea?

Let me count the ways, says Steve Maviglio, the leader of the opposition committee, here in Calitics. If you want California governed like Texas, it seems like a great idea.

Want To Protect Marriage?

A proposed initiative takes the logical next step. The Los Angeles Times reports here.

"Pay First" Rule Does Not Apply To Local Taxes

In City of Anaheim v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal ruled that the "pay first" rule embodied in Article XIII, Section 32 does not apply to local taxes. That rule requires a taxpayer seeking to challenge a tax to pay the tax first and file a lawsuit second. The court also held that there was no general public policy requiring the payment of taxes before litigation to make the rule applicable where the local tax at issue did not have a "pay first" provision and the tax had never been collected.

Court Commissioner Can Summarily Deny Habeas Petition

Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution authorizes the Legislature to authorize superior courts to appoint commissioners to perform "subordinate judicial duties." Does this extend to summarily denying petitions for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners? The Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District has said "yes," in Gomez v. Superior Court (here). The rationale is that the constitutional provision was intended to give the Legislature power to authorize commissioners to perform the duties they had prior to 1966, when this portion of the constitution was revised, and these duties included summarily denying petitions for habeas corpus. The court also relied on cases holding that mandate proceedings do not result in a "cause" that requires oral argument until an alternative writ or order to show cause issues.

This case may be right on logic, but it's a horrible result. Indeed, even the Attorney General sided with the petitioners on this one. The opinion seems driven more by concern for small counties with few judges but large prisons than the right of a prisoner to have his claims reviewed by a "real" judge. Indeed, the opinion starts out with the observation that "State prison inmates are a litigious bunch when it comes to filing writ petitions challenging conditions of confinement or raising a multitude of other grievances." It's downhill from there. The California Supreme Court should grant review and revisit its prior decision in Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp., 10 Cal. 3d 351 (1973), the principal basis for the Court of Appeal's holding.

Is California Forward Targeting Sinclair Paint?

In 1997, the Supreme Court decided, in a case called Sinclair Paint v. Board of Equalization, that the Legislature can raise fees without the two-third vote required for raising taxes. A proposed initiative constitutional amendment sponsored by California Forward seeks to circumscribe that authority, at least where the Legislature is seeking to replace lost tax revenue. Does this circumscribe Sinclair? Calbuzz reported last week that it did; here is California Forward's response.