[UPDATED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 21, 2016]

What Rights Does an Online Publisher Have Regarding the Court’s Online Content? After the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issues: (1) Does an on-line publisher have a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a trial court orders removal of on-line content? (2) Does the statutory immunity provided by 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) and (e)(3) bar a trial court from enjoining a website publisher’s actions and potentially enforcing the court’s order by way of contempt or other sanctions? Hassell v. Bird, S235968, (opinion below A143233, 247 Cal.App.4th 1336).  Review was granted on 9/21/16.

When Should Special Immigrant Juvenile Findings Be Made? After the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate, the Supreme Court granted review on following issue: Did the trial court err in denying petitioner’s request for an order making findings concerning Special Immigrant Juvenile status (8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(27)(J); see Code Civ. Proc., § 155) and placing her in her mother’s sole legal and physical custody?  Bianka M. v. Superior Court, S233757 (opinion below B267454, 245 Cal.App.4th 406). Review granted 5/25/16.

Can a Court Adopt a Policy that Denies a Verbatim Transcript for Appellate Review to Indigent Litigants? After the Fourth District, division one, Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for the defendant, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issue: In the case of a litigant who has been granted a fee waiver (Gov. Code, § 68631), can a county’s superior court employ a policy that has the practical effect of denying the services of an official court reporter to civil litigants who have been granted such a fee waiver, if the result is to preclude those litigants from procuring and providing a verbatim transcript for appellate review? Jameson v. Desta, S230899, (opinion below D066793, formerly 241 Cal.App.4th 491). Review was granted 1/27/16.

Does Federal Law Bar the Production of Social Media Records? After the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate, and quashed subpoenas for the production of social media records, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issues: (1) Did the Court of Appeal properly conclude that defendants are not entitled to pretrial access to records in the possession of Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter under the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.) and People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 117 ? (2) Does an order barring pretrial access to the requested records violate defendants’ right to compulsory process and confrontation under the Sixth Amendment or their due process right to a fair trial? (3) Should this court limit or overrule People v. Hammon?  Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court, S230051, (opinion below A144315, formerly 240 Cal.App.4th 203). Review was granted 12/16/16.

Can Non-Recreational Property Use Ripen Into an Implied Dedication to Public Use? After the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part on cross-appeals, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issue: Does Civil Code § 1009 preclude non-recreational use of non-coastal private property from ripening into an implied dedication of a public road? Scher v. Burke, S230104, (B235892, formerly 240 Cal.App.4th 381). Review was granted 11/24/15.

In Performing Background Checks, How do Employers Decide Whether to Follow ICRAA and CCRA? After the Second District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for the defendant and held that both acts apply, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issue: Is the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (Civ. Code, § 1786 et seq., “ICRAA”) unconstitutionally vague as applied to background checks conducted on a company’s employees, because persons and entities subject to both that Act and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Civ. Code, §1785.1 et seq., “CCRA”) cannot determine which statute applies? Connor v. First Student, Inc., S229428, (opinion below B256075, formerly 239 Cal.App.4th 526). Review was granted 11/24/15.

Is the Data Collected by “Automated License Plate Readers” Subject to Public Disclosure? After the Second District Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate to compel the production of police records, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issue: Does information collected by police using “automated license plate readers” — high-speed cameras that automatically scan and record the license plate numbers and time, date and location of every passing vehicle without suspicion of criminal activity — constitute law enforcement “records of . . . investigations” that are permanently exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act in accordance with Gov. Code § 6254(f)? American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California v. Superior Court, S227106, (opinion below B259392, formerly 236 Cal.App.4th 673, as modified). Review was granted 7/29/15.

Can Growers by Forced to Support California Trade Commission? After the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment upholding the statutory scheme for the Commission, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issue: Under Article 1, section 2(a), of the California Constitution, can the California Table Grape Commission compel unwilling produce growers to contribute for generic commercial advertising? Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Com., S226538 (opinion below F067956, formerly 235 Cal.App.4th 967). Review was granted 7/22/15.

Under FAA, Are Statutory Claims for Public Injunctive Relief Subject to Mandatory Arbitration? After the Court of Appeal reversed an order denying a petition to compel arbitration, the Supreme Court granted review on following issue: Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.), as interpreted in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 321, preempt the California rule (Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066; Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303) that statutory claims for public injunctive relief are not subject to compulsory private arbitration? McGill v. Citibank, N.A., S224086 (opinion below G049838, formerly 232 Cal.App.4th 753). Review was granted 4/1/15.  Update 9/8/16: Oral argument scheduled for 10/6/16. Update 9/14/16: Case is to be called and continued to December 2016 calendar.

What Privacy Interest Do Patients Have in Controlled Substance Prescription Data? After the Second District Court of Appeal found no violation of privacy rights, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issues: (1) Do a physician’s patients have a protected privacy interest in the controlled substance prescription data collected and submitted to the California Department of Justice under Health and Safety Code § 11165? (2) If so, is disclosure of such data to the Medical Board of California justified by a compelling state interest? Lewis v. Superior Court, S219811 (opinion below B252032, formerly 226 Cal.App.4th 933). Review was granted on 9/17/14.

When Do Testing Activities Constitute a Taking Which Allows the Application of Precondemnation Entry Statutes? After the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part an order granting a petition for precondemnation entry, the Supreme Court limited review to the following issues: (1) Do the geological testing activities proposed by the Dept. of Water Resources constitute a taking? (2) Do the environmental testing activities set forth in the 2/22/11, entry order constitute a taking? (3) If so, do the precondemnation entry statutes (CCP §§ 1245.010-1245.060) provide a constitutionally valid eminent domain proceeding for the taking? Property Reserve v. Superior Court, S217738 (opinion below C067758, formerly 224 Cal.App.4th 828). Review was granted on 6/25/14.  Update 1/13/16: The Court granted review after the Fourth District, division one, Court of Appeal affirmed an order granting a petition for precondemnation entry in Young’s Market Company v. Superior Court, S230808, (opinion below D068213, formerly 242 Cal.App.4th 356). Briefing was deferred pending resolution of Property Reserve.  Update 4/1/16: Oral argument scheduled for 5/3/16.  The briefs are here.  Update 5/3/16: Case argued and submitted.  Update 7/21/16: Opinion filed.  The Supreme Court declined to resolve the first two issues listed above, assuming for the sake of argument that both sets of activities constituted a taking. In an 8-1 decision, the Court found that the precondemnation entry process established by C.C.P. §§ 1245.010-1245.060, which required a court order and a deposit to cover anticipated damages before the requested activity could begin, constituted a constitutionally valid eminent domain proceeding once it was reformed by the Court to allow for a jury determination of damages. As a result, it was unnecessary to initiate “classic eminent domain proceedings” for such testing. In a concurring opinion, Justice Liu agreed in the result, but found that this process did not invoke the eminent domain requirements at all, but instead that it addressed a reasonable basis to prepare for such proceedings.

Are Outside Communications by Public Employees Still “Public Records”? After the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issue: Are written communications pertaining to city business, including email and text messages, which (a) are sent or received by public officials and employees on their private electronic devices using their private accounts, (b) are not stored on city servers, and (c) are not directly accessible by the city, “public records” within the meaning of the California Public Records Act? City of San Jose v. Superior Court, S218066 (opinion below H039498, formerly 225 Cal.App.4th 75, as modified). Review was granted on 6/25/14.  . Update 10/6/16: Oral argument scheduled for 11/2/16. The briefs are here.  Update 10/12/16: Case to be called and continued to December 2016 calendar.

Are Laws Restricting Ammunition Sales Unconstitutional? After the Court of Appeal granted a permanent injunction, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issue: Are the Penal Code sections that regulate “ammunition principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles” (Pen. Code, § 16650, subd. (a)) unconstitutional on their face for failure to afford adequate notice of the regulated conduct and/or failure to provide sufficient guidelines to prevent arbitrary enforcement? Parker v. State of California, S215265 (opinion below F062490, formerly 221 Cal.App.4th 340). Review granted 2/19/14.  Update 7/20/16: The court ordered supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the passage of Senate Bill No. 1235 (2015–2016 Reg. Sess.) rendered plaintiff’s claims moot.

Should a Potential Dedication Requirement Affect an Eminent Domain Case? The Supreme Court granted review on the following issues: (1) In this eminent domain case, was the constitutionality of the dedication requirement — that the city claimed it would have required in order to grant the property owner permission to put the property to a higher use — a question that had to be resolved by the jury pursuant to article I, section 19, of the California Constitution? (2) Was the dedication requirement a “project effect” that the eminent domain law required to be ignored in determining just compensation? City of Perris v. Stamper S213468 (opinion below E053395, formerly 218 Cal.App.4th 1104). Review granted on 11/13/13.  Update 4/1/16: Oral argument scheduled for 5/5/16.  Update 4/29/16: Oral argument to be rescheduled in May 2016. Update 5/5/16: Case called and continued to 5/26/16. The briefs are here.  Update 5/26/16: Case argued and submitted.  Update 8/15/16: Opinion filed. The unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and found that the issue of whether the theoretical dedication requirement was constitutional was a mixed question of law and fact, but predominated by law. Thus, the issue was properly put to a court. The factual question of whether such a dedication would have been imposed, along with other issues of compensation, then go to a jury. A majority of six then held that the project effect rule generally applies “to situations where it was probable at the time the dedication requirement was put in place that the property designated for public use was to be included in the project for which the property is being condemned.” This established a preliminary factual question for the trial court to decide before the value of compensation is addressed.