A fast-tracked writ proceeding challenging a new law that could have on impact on next year’s presidential election joins six other cases on the Supreme Court’s November calendar, announced today.
But there’s still no hearing in sight for Robinson v. Lewis, a case in which the court agreed to resolve a habeas corpus procedural question for the Ninth Circuit. The federal court has been waiting a really long time for an answer.
On November 5 and 6, in Sacramento, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or stated by the court itself):
People v. Hoyt: This is an automatic direct appeal from a February 2003 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such cases. Counsel was appointed in December 2007 and briefing was completed in September 2013.
People v. Leon: This is an automatic direct appeal from a May 2006 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for such cases. Counsel was appointed in January 2010 and briefing was completed in May 2015.
Patterson v. Padilla: This is the high-profile election law case. The court issued an order to show cause in August regarding the requirement in Elections Code sections 6883 and 6884 that candidates for a party’s nomination to be the President of the United States disclose their tax returns in order to be listed on the ballot for the primary election. In addition to addressing issues relating to what relief, if any, the court should order, the parties were directed to address: (1) the legislative history of Proposition 4 (Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (June 6, 1972), analysis of Prop. 4 by Legis. Counsel, pp. 9-10; id., arguments in favor of, and opposing, pp. 10-11; Sen. Const. Amend. No. 3, Stats. 1971 (1971 1st Ex. Sess.) res. ch. 274, p. 4868), as well as related legislation contemporaneous to SCA 3, and prior related legislation; and (2) any guidelines, including internal measures and protocols, that the Secretary of State has employed in the intervening decades to assess who is a “recognized” candidate for purposes of California Constitution, article II, section 5.
K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Does the Court of Appeal lack jurisdiction over an appeal from an order imposing sanctions on an attorney if the notice of appeal is brought in the name of the client rather than in the name of the attorney? The court granted review in June 2017.
Barefoot v. Jennings: Does a former beneficiary of a trust have standing to challenge the validity of amendments to the trust that resulted in the disinheritance of the former beneficiary? The court granted review in December 2018.
United Educators of San Francisco v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board: The case presents issues concerning the entitlement of substitute teachers and other on-call paraprofessional employees to unemployment insurance benefits when they are not called to work during a summer school term or session. This case has been around a while. The court granted review in September 2016.
People v. Partee: Was defendant properly convicted as an accessory after the fact (Pen. Code § 32) for refusing to testify at trial after being subpoenaed as a witness and offered immunity for her testimony? The court granted review in July 2018.