The Supreme Court today announced its October calendar.  As in some past Octobers (here and here), part of the calendar is devoted to a special student outreach session.  Instead of traveling to a law school as in past special sessions, however, the court is simply moving downstairs — to the auditorium in its building — to accommodate the students for the first three arguments.

As already noted, one of the October cases will be the one challenging the Legislature’s authority to put on the ballot an initiative asking the voters’ non-binding opinion whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

On October 6 and 7, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Padilla:  This case involves the validity of proposed Proposition 49 for the November 2014 General Election — specifically, whether the Legislature had the authority to place a non-binding measure on the ballot seeking the views of the electorate.  (And see here, here, here, here, and here.)

Gillette Company v. Franchise Tax Board:  Were multistate taxpayers required to apportion business income according to the formula set forth in Revenue and Taxation Code section 25128 as amended in 1993 or could they elect to apportion income according to the formula set forth in former Revenue and Taxation Code section 38006 pursuant to the adoption of the Multistate Tax Compact in 1974?
This case has attracted several amicus curiae briefs, including one on behalf of 18 states and the District of Columbia.
Third District Court of Appeal Justice William Murray is sitting pro tem in place of Justice Ming Chin.

Hampton v. County of San Diego:  Does a public entity establish the second element of design immunity under Government Code section 830.6 — discretionary approval of design plans — as a matter of law by presenting evidence that its design plans were approved by an employee with the discretion to do so, even if the plaintiff presents evidence that the design at issue violated the public entity’s own standards?

People v. Mendoza:  This is an automatic appeal from a May 2006 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.

People v. Cage:  This is an automatic appeal from a November 2003 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.

California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District:  Under what circumstances, if any, does the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project?

Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc.:  Does the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.) preempt state consumer lawsuits alleging that a food product was falsely labeled “100% Organic” when it contained ingredients that were not certified organic under the California Organic Products Act of 2003 (Food & Agr. Code, § 46000 et seq.; Health & Saf. Code, § 110810 et seq.)?

People v. Stevens:  May an expert’s testimony in support of a defendant’s commitment under the Mentally Disordered Offender Act (Pen. Code § 2960 et seq.) that the defendant used force or violence in committing the commitment offense (Pen. Code § 2962, subd. (e)(P)) and that he received treatment for at least 90 days in the year before being paroled (Pen. Code § 2962, subd. (c)) be based entirely on hearsay?

People v. Sandoval:  This is an automatic appeal from a May 2003 judgment of death.  The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.