In cases the Supreme Court agrees to hear, rule 8.516(a)(1) allows the court to “specify the issues to be briefed and argued.”  When the court doesn’t specify the issues — which is more often than not — outsiders wanting to know what’s involved in a case look to pending issues summaries that are created by court staff to avoid legal jargon and to be accessible to the general public.  (See:  What’s the issue?)  The summaries specifically explain that their purpose is “to inform the public of the general subject matter” in review-granted cases and they warn that they do “not necessarily reflect the views of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.”

It thus seemed that there was a clear dichotomy:  either the court made an official order specifying a case’s issues or parties and the public were limited to a less-than-definitive summary of what’s before the court.  But there now might be a hybrid, something we noticed when reviewing one case on the court’s February calendar, announced last week.

In Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court, the court granted review, but didn’t specify the issues to be briefed and argued.  One party, however, later filed a Request for Modification of Question Presented, apparently not satisfied with the issue summary drafted by court staff.  The court granted the request and ordered, “The statement of the question presented in this matter is revised to read,” which was followed by new text for the issue to be decided.  (The original summary — as of today — still appears on the Case Summary page of the case’s online docket, but the pending issues summary has the revised statement.)

What is to be made of the court itself revising its staff’s summary of issues after not having specified the issues to be briefed and argued?  We guess the statement is still less authoritative than a rule 8.516 court specification of issues, but is now more likely — possibly, maybe, potentially — to “reflect the views of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.”

[UpdateImportant additional information about that revision of a question presented.]