September 7, 2011

Supreme Court announces October calendar

The Supreme Court today posted its October oral argument calendar. The six cases to be heard all have one thing in common — none is named Brinker. However, one of the cases — Harris v. Superior Court — is even older than Brinker. The court granted review in Harris in November 2007, 11 months before review was granted in Brinker.

Traditionally, the October arguments are heard in Los Angeles and the court’s 2011 calendar indicates that this year was to be no exception. The calendar posted today, however, says this October’s arguments are to be held in San Francisco.

The cases (and the issues presented, as stated on the court’s website) that will be argued on October 3 are:

Retired Employees Assoc. of Orange Co. Inc. v. County of Orange: The court will answer the question posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals whether, as a matter of California law, a California county and its employees can form an implied contract that confers vested rights to health benefits on retired county employees.

Harris v. Superior Court: Do claims adjusters employed by insurance companies fall within the administrative exemption (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, section 11040) to the requirement that employees are entitled to overtime compensation?

In re Shaputis: Did the Court of Appeal err in setting aside the denial of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings?

In re C. H.: (1) Was minor ineligible for commitment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice, because he was not found to have committed an offense enumerated in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), although his offense was enumerated in Penal Code section 290.008, subdivision (c)? (2) Assuming the juvenile court had the statutory authority to order such a commitment, did the court abuse its discretion in doing so on the ground there was no showing that minor would benefit from that commitment and because the court failed to adequately consider alternative placements?

People v. Eubanks: [This is an automatic appeal from an October 1999 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such appeals.]

People v. Sanchez: (1) When a defendant indicates the intention to move to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest on the ground of ineffective assistance of appointed counsel, is the trial court obligated to conduct a Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) and determine whether counsel should be removed and replaced by new appointed counsel? (2) Was defendant required to obtain a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, sec. 1237.5) in order to raise this issue on appeal?

Leave a Reply