For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email email@example.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.
To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright.
It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes
and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission.
Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial
marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Professor Jessica Levinson (Loyola Law School), Paul Cane (Paul Hastings), and Glenn Danas (Capstone Law APC) comment on two major cases that had oral argument before the Cal. Supreme Court this week, one involving the fate of a critical criminal justice ballot initiative championed by Governor Brown, and another with huge stakes for employment lawyers.
On this week's Weekly Appellate Report, Rulings Editor Brian Cardile speaks with three expert guests about two cases that were argued before the state high court this week.
Professor Jessica Levinson from Loyola Law School joins the program to speak about Brown v. Superior Court, a case of extreme importance to both Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris. The case centers around a ballot initiative Brown announced in January that seeks to reform parole and, in so doing, potentially release thousands of California inmates convicted of non-violent crimes. Brown filed his proposal as an amendment to a prior initiative dealing with juvenile prosecution, which had already completed its public comment period, meaning Brown's amendment wouldn't be subject to similar comment. A Sacramento County superior court deemed Brown's amendment not sufficiently related to the original proposal, putting in jeopardy the measure's place on November's ballot.
The second case discussed is Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, which was argued on Tuesday, and which considers the vital question of who, as between an arbitrator and a trial court judge, makes the decision whether class claims may proceed in front of an arbitrator when the underlying arbitration agreement is silent on the matter.
As always, CLE credit is available for listening to the program; see the link below to complete a short test to receive one hour of credit.