[UPDATED THROUGH MAY 8, 2013]
Do Forced Disclosures by Pharmaceutical Claims Processors Violate the California Constitution? In response to a request under C.R.C., rule 8.548 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court will address this issue: Does Cal. Civil Code § 2527 (which requires certain disclosures by prescription drug claims
processors) compel speech in violation of art. I, § 2 of the California Constitution?
Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC, S203124. The request was made at 682 F.3d 779. Certification was granted on 7/18/12.
Should a Sexually Violent Predator Act Commitment Petition be Dismissed After The Assessment Protocol Was Found To Be an Improper Regulation? Was petitioner entitled to dismissal of a petition for commitment under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.) when the evaluations originally supporting the filing of the petition were conducted under an assessment protocol that was later found to constitute an invalid regulation and the results of reevaluation under a properly-adopted assessment protocol would have precluded the initial filing of the petition under Welfare and Institutions Code § 6601? The Supreme Court has accepted review in three cases addressing this issue.
Boysel v. Superior Court, S202324 (opinion below G045202, formerly 204 Cal.App.4th 854), review granted 6/13/12.
Reilly v. Superior Court, S202280 (opinion below G045118, 204 Cal.App.4th 829), review granted 6/13/12.
Wright v. Superior Court, S202320 (opinion blow G045203, formerly 4 Cal.App.4th 879), review granted 6/13/12.
Update 6/20/12: The Court defers briefing in Boysel and Wright pending the resolution in Reilly. Update 9/12/12: Review granted in Macy v. Superior Court, S204255 (opinion below H037138, formerly 206 Cal.App.4th 1393, as modified 207 Cal.App.4th 395a). Briefing is deferred pending a decision in Reilly. Update 5/8/13: Oral argument scheduled for 5/30/13.
Should An Undocumented Immigrant, Otherwise Qualified, Be Admitted to the State Bar? This case includes the following issues: (1) Does 8 U.S.C. §1621(c) apply and preclude this court’s admission of an undocumented immigrant to the State Bar of California? Does any other statute, regulation, or authority preclude the admission? (2) Is there any state legislation that provides — as specifically authorized by 8 U.S.C. §1621(d) — that undocumented immigrants are eligible for professional licenses in fields such as law, medicine, or other professions, and, if not, what significance, if any, should be given to the absence of such legislation? (3) Does the issuance of a license to practice law impliedly represent that the licensee may be legally employed as an attorney? (4) If licensed, what are the legal and public policy limitations, if any, on an undocumented immigrant’s ability to practice law? (5) What, if any, other public policy concerns arise with a grant of this application? In re Garcia on Admission, S202512. This is an original proceeding.
Can a Public Records Request Be Used to Obtain the Names of Officers in an On-Duty Shooting? Are the names of police officers involved in on-duty shooting incidents subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act? Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, S200872 (opinion below B231245, formerly 203 Cal.App.4th 292), review granted 4/18/12.
When Are Local Ordinances Banning or Regulating Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Preempted by Federal or State Law? The Supreme Court has accepted review in four cases to address this issue:
City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638 (opinion below E052400, formerly 200 Cal.App.4th 885), review granted 1/18/12.
People v. G3 Holistic, Inc., S198395 (opinion below E051663, nonpublished), review granted 1/18/12.
Pack v. Superior Court, S197169 (opinion below B228781, formerly 199 Cal.App.4th 1070), review granted 1/18/12.
Update 5/16/12: Review granted in City of Lake Forest v. Lake Forest Wellness Center and Collective, S201372 (opinion below, G043817, G043867, nonpublished opinion); and City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective, S201454 (opinion below G043909; 203 Cal.App.4th 1413, as modified 204 Cal.App.4th 704a). Briefing in both matters is deferred pending a decision in City of Riverside. Update 8/22/12: Review in Pack v. Superior Court, S197169, is dismissed. The ordinance at issue has been repealed, making the issue moot, and the petitioner has abandoned the federal preemption arguments in favor of issues not previously litigated. Update 9/19/12: Review granted in County of Los Angeles v. Alternative Medicinal Cannabis Collective, S204663 (opinion below B233419, formerly 207 Cal.App.4th 601) and Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, S204684 (opinion below B230436, formerly 207 Cal.App.4th 703), with briefing in each deferred pending resolution of City of Riverside. Update 12/12/12: Review granted in City of Temucula v. Cooperative Patients Services, Inc., S206085 (opinion below E053310, nonpublished opinion), with briefing deferred pending resolution of City of Riverside. Update 1/8/13: Oral argument scheduled for 2/5/13. The briefs are here. Update 2/5/13: Case argued and submitted. Update 2/27/13: Further proceedings in People v. G3 Holistic, Inc., S198395 (see above) are deferred pending decision in City of Riverside. Update 5/6/13: Opinion issued. The Court unanimously held that state laws which remove certain state law obstacles permitting medical marijuana use do not preempt local ordinances which declare marijuana dispensaries a nuisance and ban them.
Which County Records of Public Land Use Are Subject to the Public Records Act?
Is Orange County’s computer database of public land records exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) as a “computer mapping system” (Gov. Code, § 6254.9, subd. (b)), or is that term limited to computer programs that read such a database? Sierra Club v. Superior Court, S194708. (opinion below G044138, formerly 195 Cal.App.4th 1537), petition granted on 9/14/11. Update 4/4/13: Oral argument scheduled for 5/7/13. Update 5/7/13: Cause argued and submitted. The briefs are here.
Under What Conditions Must the State Bar Disclose Collected Information?
The court limited review to the following issues: (1) What ground, if any, exists for
finding that the information sought by plaintiffs is information that is subject to public disclosure? (2) What is the effect, if any, of the representation of confidentiality made by the State Bar to the individuals from whom the information was collected? (3) Does the form in which the requested information is regularly maintained affect whether the State Bar must provide the requested information? Sander v. State Bar of California, S194951 (opinion below, A128647, formerly 196 Cal.App.4th 614), review granted 8/25/11.
What Standard Applies to Determine a Good Faith Belief in a Valid Marriage? Is a person’s good faith belief in the validity of a marriage measured by an objective or subjective standard for the purpose of determining the person’s status as a putative spouse under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60? Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., S193493 (opinion below H034826, formerly 194 Cal.App.4th 584), review granted 8/10/11. Update 4/4/13: Oral argument scheduled for 5/8/13. Update 5/8/13: Cause argued and submitted. The briefs are here.