Angela Kopolovich
In California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos the California Supreme Court upheld a law dissolving the state’s redevelopment agencies, while simultaneously striking down the agencies’ last vestige of hope, a pay-to-play companion bill. The court’s December 2011 decision thereby eliminated the state’s redevelopment agencies entirely.
Jonathan Berry
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made headlines recently when a divided panel declared unconstitutional California’s Proposition 8, which affirmed that the state would recognize marriages only between one man and one woman.1 Before the Ninth Circuit could decide the merits, however, it had to deal with the fact that state officials had all declined to defend the law.2 In the district court below, the law was defended by the official proponents of Proposition 8, the organizers who put it on the 2008 ballot. On appeal, the plaintiffs attacking the law argued that its proponents lacked standing to defend it in court; to resolve any doubts about its jurisdiction, then, the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the California Supreme Court.
Andrew C. Cook
In a recent decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has added to the growing list of cases that allow plaintiffs to recover “phantom damages” in personal injury actions for past medical expenses that were written off by the medical provider and never paid by the plaintiff or his or her insurer.
William S.W. Chang
On December 8, 2011, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a jury’s award of approximately $5.98 million in compensatory damages and $42 million in punitive damages against a developer of genetically modified rice found to have negligently allowed the rice to contaminate the national rice supply.1 Specifically, the court held that (1) the statutory cap on punitive damages was unconstitutional under the state constitution, (2) the economic-loss doctrine did not bar the claims, (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony on future damages, and (4) the developer failed to preserve its argument that the punitive damages were grossly excessive.
Spring 2012
Steven J. Willis, Jordan E. Pratt
On December 22, 2011, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a trial court’s denial of a minor’s judicial bypass application—an application to obtain an abortion without parental consent. In so doing, the court decided two issues of significance to both sides of the abortion debate: the standard of review on appeal and the relevance of a minor’s failure to seek parental consent in determining whether to grant a judicial bypass. First, the court held that appellate courts must deferentially review—under an abuse of discretion standard—a trial court’s denial of a minor’s petition for judicial bypass. Second, the court held that a trial court may not rely on a minor’s failure to seek her parents’ consent when determining whether she has the requisite maturity and capacity to consent to an abortion.
Spring 2012
Edward Greim, Justin Whitworth
From the Montana Supreme Court comes a potential challenge to the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (“Citizens United”). The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision ruled, 5-4, that corporations’ and labor unions’ independent spending in elections is political speech and does not corrupt the political process; therefore, a ban on such spending included in section 203 of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) could not survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Spring 2012
Jack J. Park Jr.
In Final Exit Network, Inc. v. Georgia, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously concluded that Georgia’s statutory prohibition on advertising or offering to assist in the commission of a suicide was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech protected by both the United States and Georgia Constitutions. The court suggested that the state could have prohibited all assisted suicides instead of just public offers of assistance, leaving a potential opening for the State Legislature to pass a different law.
Summer 2010
Scott Leviant
The debate surrounding use of the Unfair Competition Law, or UCL, has been framed by commentators favoring its curtailment as a choice between a deterrence model, where theoretical over-compensation is possible, and a tort model, where all class actions are viewed as a collection of individual actions. While this is an interesting framework in which to discuss the divergent positions of the defense and the plaintiff bar (as proxies, generally for consumer and corporate interests respectively), the dichotomy leaves important concepts out of that dialogue. Moreover, there are a broader set of interests that are at play in the ongoing struggle over the UCL: interests that extend well beyond the unfair competition law.
Summer 2010
Jeremy Rosen
In the last couple of years I have had many clients who have told me that they have either moved significant parts of their operations out of California or have made conscious decisions not to have any further expansion in California, but instead expand in other states. These decisions are made for a number of reasons, but primarily because of (1) California’s very pro-employee employment laws, (2) because the impact of section 17200, and (3) California’s fiscal crisis. Obviously the fiscal crisis and employment laws of California could be the subject of weeks of depressing discussion, but today we are focusing on Section 17200.
Summer 2010
Shaun P. Martin
The change in 2004 with Proposition 64 was a microcosm of what was going on in the nation. Prop 64 codified that you cannot sue unless you lost money and property. Absent this, there was no standing. How we approach standing has changed in the last twenty years and Prop 64 illustrates this.
Summer 2010
William L. Stern
The forces that in 2004 gave rise to Prop 64 are, in microcosm, the same forces that are driving a larger debate about class actions that is being played out on the national stage. Th at debate is worthy of Socrates. But instead of debating the nature of Truth or Beauty, this contest might be better entitled, “What is the Nature and Purpose of Class Actions?”