The Supreme Court last week announced that it will hear in September the Prop. 8 standing case that was referred by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (The California Channel has filed a request to televise the argument.) It subsequently published its entire September calendar. The calendar includes the names of Court of Appeal justices who will sit on the cases as temporary Supreme Court justices in the unlikely event that the Commission on Judicial Appointments does not confirm Goodwin Liu the week before as the newest permanent member of the court. Once again, it’s a Brinker-less calendar.

The cases (and the issues presented, as stated on the court’s website) that will be heard on September 6 (at the court in San Francisco) and 7 (at the University of California Hastings College of Law) are:

Perry v. Brown: Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

People v. Dement: [This is an automatic appeal from a September 1994 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]

People v. Allen and Johnson: [This is an automatic appeal from December 1997 judgments of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]

People v. Vang: (1) Did the Court of Appeal correctly find that the trial court erred in permitting the use of hypothetical questions of the prosecution expert witness? (2) If so, did the Court of Appeal correctly find the error to be harmless?

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Alameda Produce Market LLC: Does a lender’s withdrawal of a portion of the deposit of probable compensation in an eminent domain proceeding effect a waiver under Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.260 of the property owner’s right to challenge the taking?

Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.: Is plaintiff eligible for an award of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine based on a successful challenge to a court reporter’s service charges that established legal precedent?

People v. Mendoza: [This is an automatic appeal from an October 1997 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]

[UPDATE: The court has granted the California Channel’s request to televise the Perry v. Brown oral argument.]