People v. Skidmore (1865) 27 Cal. 287 had a decent run. For well over a century, the opinion allowed a trial court judgment based on multiple grounds to preclude later litigation on all of the grounds even if the judgment was affirmed on appeal on only one ground.
However, twelve years ago, the Fourth District, Division Three, refused to follow Skidmore “because subsequent developments in California law and the trend of decisions have weakened that case’s authority to the point where we can conclude it no longer reflects the views of the California Supreme Court.” (Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. v. Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1123.) That was the right call.
Today, the Supreme Court overrules Skidmore, finding its “approach to preclusion is flawed.” The court’s unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye in Samara v. Matar stresses “the important role that the availability of appellate review plays in ensuring that a determination is sufficiently reliable to be conclusive in future litigation” and holds that “the preclusive effect of the judgment should be evaluated as though the trial court had not relied on the unreviewed ground.”
The court affirms the Second District, Division Seven, Court of Appeal. Besides overruling its Skidmore opinion, the court also disapproves a 1940 decision by the First District, Division Two.