Home: California Appeals Lawyer, Kyle D. SmithHome About Kyle D. Smith, California Appeals LawyerAbout Pricing: California Appeals Lawyer, Kyle D. SmithPricing ArticlesArticles Contact California Appeals Lawyer, Kyle D. SmithContact

Amicus Curiae Briefs in California State Courts

Amicus curiae briefs are a useful way for people to have their voices heard in legal cases, even when they aren't a party to the litigation.

Amicus curiae is a Latin phrase that means “friend of the court.”1 It refers to a person or group that is not a party to a legal action, but wants their opinion to be heard by the court. They can file a brief—called an amicus brief—in which they explain their theory of the case.

In California, amicus briefs can be filed in both civil and criminal cases.2 They are usually filed in the court of appeal or the supreme court—California’s two highest levels of court.3 They can also be filed in the superior court—the lowest court in California.4

This article explains amicus curiae procedures in California state courts.5

Why Case Law Matters: Stare Decisis

The basic purpose of an amicus brief is to influence the outcome of a case.6 To understand why a group would want to do that, we can look at the effect legal cases can have on other, similar legal cases.

California courts follow a doctrine called stare decisis , as do all courts in the United States. “Stare decisis” is a Latin phrase, short for “stare decisis, et non quieta movere.”7 Roughly translated, it means “to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.”8

In application, stare decisis is the idea that a decision of a higher court will bind the decisions of lower courts on the same issue.9 A case that binds lower courts is called precedent. Important precedents can impact numerous future cases and the lives of many people.

For example, the California Supreme Court decided In re Marriage Cases in 2008, which held that the California Constitution guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry.10 This temporarily resulted in all same-sex couples across the state having the right to marry, regardless of whether they were directly involved in the case.11 This case demonstrates why court decisions can be so important—their outcomes can affect many people.

The purpose of stare decisis is to ensure some degree of stability, consistency, and predictability within our court system.12 So, although precedents can be overruled,13 litigants will generally know how issues will be resolved once they are decided by a higher court.14 This allows people to rely on the law as defined by precedent-setting cases.

In California, two courts are capable of producing opinions that hold precedential value: (1) the California Court of Appeal, and (2) the Supreme Court of California.15 And only published decisions of the court of appeal hold precedential value.16

The doctrine of stare decisis gets a little more complicated than what is explained here. But the important takeaway is that a single case can have wide-reaching effects on the rights and obligations of people across California.

So it makes sense for people or organizations to seek involvement when their interests (or the interests of their constituents) might be at stake. Amicus briefs are one of the most common ways to have their voice heard in a case.

Benefits of Amicus Briefs

Most groups that file an amicus brief—called the amicus (singular) or amici (plural)—are motivated by one or more of the following reasons:

  • They want to help shape the development of case law.
  • They want to draw attention to a specific concern in the case.
  • They want to bolster the arguments of a party.
  • They want to share a unique viewpoint.

Shaping Case Law

Amicus briefs can be a good idea for groups that want to help influence the development of the law. Amici (the groups that file amicus briefs) usually do not care about the specific parties involved in a case. Instead, they take a broad view of the policies at stake and argue in favor of their desired outcome.

For this reason, amicus briefs are most common in cases that involve significant legal issues.17 In fact, some courts even solicit amicus briefs from interested organizations when an issue of particular public importance is identified.18

Because amicus briefs can help shape the development of the law by influencing court decisions, they are an important tool for unions, nonprofits, corporations, and public interest groups alike.

Drawing Attention to Issues or Cases

Amicus briefs can also help highlight specific concerns in a case. The parties directly involved in the litigation might overlook an issue or spend very little time discussing it.

This commonly happens when parties need to make comprehensive arguments about their case or confront multiple other issues. The parties’ briefs are usually limited by both word count rules and stylistic considerations. So addressing particular points in detail might not be feasible.

Amici, on the other hand, are not similarly constrained. Although they still must abide by word count limits, they can focus their briefs on one or two important issues and disregard the rest.

Amici, for example, can often avoid bickering about the facts of the case because they are not necessarily concerned about the particular parties. Instead, they can dedicate their briefs to the broader policy concerns.

Bolstering Arguments

Amicus briefs can bring credibility to an argument. The actual parties of a case are often biased in their presentation of the facts and legal arguments, which courts know and expect. So it can sometimes be difficult to take the policy arguments of the parties seriously.

An independent organization, however, can appear less biased and can demonstrate the desires or fears of a particular group of people. The appearance of credibility and legitimacy go a long way toward winning an argument.

For example, a criminal defendant might argue that a particular outcome would negatively effect the rights of many people. A court is unlikely to take seriously the fears of one self-interested criminal. But when an organization like the ACLU files an amicus brief making a similar argument, courts are more likely to pay attention.

In this way, amicus briefs can be a powerful tool to help strengthen the credibility of arguments in a case.

Sharing a Unique Viewpoint

In some cases, the main parties get their arguments wrong. In others, the parties ignore the interests of people who that might be indirectly affected by the decision. When this happens, an amicus brief can help explain to the court why an alternative approach should be taken.

Courts often appreciate amicus briefs because the people filing them are nonparties who have a different perspective from the primary litigants.19 That perspective can help educate the court on relevant considerations that might not otherwise be expressed by the parties.

Who Can File an Amicus Brief

The California Rules of Court allow “any person or entity” to apply for permission to file an amicus brief.20 This would seem to allow anyone to participate in the amicus process.

The courts, however, retain discretion to deny any person or group’s application.21 And an order denying an application to appear as amicus curiae is not appealable.22 Meaning, there is nothing a person or group can do to compel a court to let their voices be heard as amicus curiae.

In practice, most amicus briefs are filed by: organizations dedicated to advocacy; government entities or officials; corporations; nonprofits; and trade associations, unions, or professional groups.

Amicus Briefs in the California Court of Appeal

The California Court of Appeal and the Appellate Divisions of the California Superior Courts have mostly identical amicus procedures. This section focuses on the court of appeal, but provides citations for the appellate division as well.

The first step to get involved as an amicus curiae is to obtain permission from the presiding justice to file an amicus curiae brief.23 The application must be accompanied by the proposed amicus brief.24 Most attorneys combine their amicus brief and their application to file an amicus brief into a single filing.

The application must explain the prospective amicus’s interest in the case.25 In doing so, it should emphasize why the amicus will provide a valuable viewpoint that the court should hear.

The application and brief must be filed no later than 14 days after the appellant’s reply brief is filed, which is usually the last brief in the case.26 Sometimes no reply brief is filed, in which case the application and brief should be filed within 14 days of when the time to file the last brief expired.27

Some attorneys recommend filing the amicus brief far in advance of the reply—sometimes as early as the date the opening brief is filed, or shortly after. That decision is ultimately a strategic one and outside the scope of this article.

The presiding justice can allow amici to file their application and brief later than 14 days of when the appellant’s reply brief is or should have been filed.28 But amici should not rely on on that discretion, if possible.29

Appellate courts also requires that certain financial interests be disclosed. An application must include:

  • A list of every person or entity who made a financial contribution to fund the brief, other than the amicus curiae themselves;30
  • A statement about whether any party or an attorney for any party authored any part of the amicus brief;31 and
  • A statement about whether any party or an attorney for any party made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of the brief.32

On the cover, the amicus must disclose the party that it supports—if any.33 This is usually done in the title of the brief itself. For example:

Application for Leave to File Amicas Curiae Brief and Brief of [group name(s)] in Support of [Appellant or Respondent].

Finally, the application and brief must be served on all parties or their attorneys and the superior court.34 Depending on the case, there may be other parties that must be served.

At the end of the application and brief, a proof of service must be included. The proof of service should specifically list each party on whom the letter was served, along with their service address. A sample proof of service can be found here. For the appellate division of the superior court, a sample proof of service is available here.

Amicus Briefs in the Supreme Court of California

The application and briefing procedures for amici curiae in the supreme court largely mirror those in the appellate courts.35 In the supreme court, however, amici should be careful to note the status of the case.

Sometimes the court will “grant and hold” a petition.36 In this kind of situation, the supreme court is usually waiting to decide a different case that is similar or related to the one it granted and held. It defers briefing to a later time and an amicus brief might not yet be appropriate.

Assuming the case is properly before the court and briefing has begun, the first step is to obtain permission from the chief justice to file an amicus curiae brief.37 This request for permission comes in the form of a filed application.38

The application must explain the prospective amicus’s interest in the case.39 It must also explain why the amicus will provide a valuable viewpoint that the court should hear. In other words, the amici should emphasize their expected role in assisting the court’s decision.

The application must be accompanied by the proposed brief, and it must state on its cover the party it seeks to support, if any.40 Many attorneys consolidate the application and the amicus brief into one brief—a practice expressly permitted by the rules of court.41

The title of the application will usually reference the fact that a brief is included with it, and it will identify the party whom it is written to support.42 For example:

Application for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief and Amici Curiae Brief of [group name(s)] in Support of [Petitioner or Respondent].

In the application, the amici must disclose certain financial interests, including:

  • An explanation of whether any party or an attorney for any party authored any part of the amicus brief;43 and
  • An explanation of whether any party or an attorney for any party made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of the brief.44
  • A list of every person or entity who made a financial contribution to fund the brief, other than the amicus curiae themselves;45

The application and brief may be filed no later than 30 days after all briefs of the parties have been filed.46 For the purposes of this rule, supplemental briefs are not “briefs of the parties” and do not extend the time in which an amicus may file their brief.47

The chief justice can allow amici to file their application and brief later than 30 days of when all the parties briefs were or should have been filed.48 But amici should not rely on on that discretion, if possible.49

The application and brief must be served on all parties or their attorneys, the superior court, and the court of appeal.50 Depending on the case, there may be other parties that must be served.51 At the end of the application and brief, a proof of service must be included.

Amici should file one original and 13 copies of the application and brief with the court.52 Alternatively, for those technologically-inclined amici, the application and brief may be submitted electronically, in which case the amici need only file one original and eight copies of the application and brief.53

The parties also have the right to serve and file an answer to the amicus briefs.54 The answer may be a response to an individual amicus brief, or it can be a consolidated answer to multiple amici.55 The answer, if any, must be filed within 30 days of the last timely-filed amicus application, or whenever the time to file an amicus curiae brief expires.56

Seeking Oral Argument

Courtroom for Oral Argument

After the briefing stage is complete, the case may be orally argued.57 For the parties directly involved in the case, oral argument is a right.58

In some situations, an amicus curiae can participate in oral argument.59 But, as nonparties, they have no affirmative right to do so.60

In the California Court of Appeal

In the court of appeal, oral argument can be waived by the parties, in which case the matter will be decided based on the briefs alone.61 So oral argument does not necessarily happen in every case.

An amicus curiae seeking oral argument must file a written request with the court, which can be approved or denied in the court’s discretion.62

The California Rules of Court do not specify when a request for oral argument must be filed, and the procedures can vary depending on the district. Usually, the time to request oral argument is specified in a notice that the court of appeal’s clerk sends to the parties.63

Normally, the parties directly involved in the case are allowed up to 30 minutes, per side, to argue their case at oral argument in the court of appeal.64 Some appellate districts limit that time to 15 minutes, even though the California Rules of Court would seem to prohibit them from doing so.65

If the court grants the request of one or more amicus curiae to participate in oral argument, it might divide or expand the time it would otherwise allot to the parties.66

Amici wishing to participate in oral argument in the court of appeal should check all local rules. It can also be helpful to discuss the correct procedures with a court clerk.

In the California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court hears oral arguments in all cases it decides on the merits.67 The California Supreme Court posts the audio of some of its more-notable oral arguments here.

In the supreme court, the ability of amici to participate in oral argument is more limited than in the court of appeal.68 Unless the court orders otherwise, only one attorney for each side may orally argue a case.69 An amicus curiae requires permission from one of the parties to use a portion of their time.70

Each side is apportioned thirty minutes of oral argument time in the California Supreme Court.71 They can request to divide their time among multiple attorneys (including the amici’s attorneys) in segments of no less than ten minutes.72

So, a request by an amicus curiae to use a portion of a party’s time can be very costly for that party.

A request to divide time must be made within ten days of the date the order setting oral argument is filed.73

Distinguish: Amicus Curiae Letters

The procedures discussed above have focused on influencing a court’s opinion. When a case is being briefed, it is already properly before the court that will be deciding it. But amici can also seek to influence whether a case is heard by the court in the first place.74

The Importance of Amicus Letters

In California, the state supreme court usually has discretion to choose which cases it reviews.75 This means that the that a party wishing to change a decision of the court of appeal has to overcome two hurdles: (1) it must convince the supreme court to hear the case in a petition for review, and (2) if the petition is granted, it must convince the supreme court to agree with its arguments.

Convincing the California Supreme Court to hear a case can sometimes be more difficult than winning on the merits. The California Supreme Court receives more than 4,000 petitions for review per year, and it grants a little more than 100 of them.76 Of those grants, many are never actually heard on the merits—they can be “granted and held” or “granted and transferred” without the court ever reaching a decision.77

So, the court hears less than 4% of the cases that people ask it to review.78

Amicus curiae can help a party by supporting or opposing a petition for review. At this stage, however, the amicus has no right to file a brief in the supreme court.79 Instead, they must serve and send an amicus curiae letter.80

Amicus curiae letters can be important because they signal to the court that the case may be more notable than others.81 Amicus letters are usually a good idea when offering support for a petition for review, but they might be unwise when a person or group opposes a petition.

The California Supreme Court is primarily concerned with settling important questions of law.82 So when an amicus letter is received by the court, it demonstrates that the issue could impact more people than just those involved in the case.

Sending an Amicus Letter

The California Rules of Court provide no clear deadline for amicus letters.83 But if an amicus wishes to send a letter, the letter must be received by the court before it rules on the petition for review.

The supreme court normally has 60 days to rule on a petition for review after the last petition is filed, but it may do so any time before then as well.84 The court may extend this 60-day deadline by up to 90 days.85 If the court does not rule on the petition within that time, it is deemed denied.

Obviously, the letter can have no effect if the court has already decided whether to grant or deny the petition. So it is important that any prospective amicus serve and send their letter at the earliest possible opportunity.86 This usually means sending it shortly after the petition for review is filed.

When sending an amicus letter to the court, the amicus must include an original copy of the letter plus eight copies.87 It is also a good idea to include one extra copy—along with a pre-stampt, pre-addressed envelope—so the clerk can send it back with a stamp evidencing that the letter was properly received.

Importantly, the letter must include a proof of service at the end, which states, under the penalty of perjury, that the letter was served on all parties or their attorneys.88 The proof of service should specifically list each party on whom the letter was served, along with their service address. A sample proof of service can be found at the end of this letter.

Content of the Letter

The rules of court provide only two requirements for the content of an amicus letter:

  • It must describe the interest of the amicus curiae; and
  • All attachments or materials incorporated by reference must comply with rule 8.504, subdivision (e).89

Rule 8.504 is a restriction on the type of attachments that may be included with a document.90 And, with the exception of certain unpublished opinions, the a combined length of those attachments may not exceed ten pages.91

In addition to these requirements, the letter should focus on several relevant factors that the court will consider in deciding whether the grant the petition for review:

  • Whether the case involves a significant legal question that might impact numerous people.92
  • Whether the opinion of the court of appeal below conflicted with other decisions of the court of appeal.93
  • Whether there is a jurisdictional question that the court needs to resolve.94
  • And whether the opinion below was decided without a majority of the panel agreeing on the outcome.95

It is usually not enough to argue that a case below was incorrectly decided. The California Supreme Court is not concerned with the results of individual cases. It is concerned with guiding the law in a positive direction.

So, in most cases the best arguments for granting review relate to the importance of the legal issue and any conflict of opinions in the court of appeal. For this reason, it is much more likely that an opinion that was published below will end up being reviewed by the supreme court.

Final Thoughts

Amicus curiae briefs and letters are among the most important ways for people to participate on California’s legal system. They can help direct courts to the important issues, explain the impact specific outcomes might have, and influence justices to answer certain questions.

Given the important interests at stake, the best decision a potential amicus curiae can make is choosing the right lawyer. If you are ahve questions about filing an amicus brief, please feel free to call me at (949) 537-2228 or e-mail me at info@appeals-lawyer.com.


  1. Connerly v. State Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1177.

    Footnote 1
  2. See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, 8.360, 8.412, 8.487, 8.520, 8.630.

    Footnote 2
  3. Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 2, 3; Jud. Council of Cal., Fact Sheet: California Judicial Branch (Jan. 2015), available here.

    Footnote 3
  4. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.882, subd. (d) [allowing amicus briefs in the appellate division of the superior court]; see also In re Veterans’ Industries, Inc. (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 902, 924 [suggesting that amicus briefs might be permissible at the trial level].

    Footnote 4
  5. This article does not cover federal amicus curiae procedures. If you have questions not addressed in this article, or if you are interested in information about federal amicus petitions, you should contact a qualified amicus curiae attorney in your area today.

    Footnote 5
  6. See Paul M. Collins, Jr., Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation, 38 Law & Soc’y Rev. 807 (2004), available here.

    Footnote 6
  7. People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478, 557, fn. 1.

    Footnote 7
  8. In re Osborne (9th Cir. 1996) 76 F.3d 306, 309.

    Footnote 8
  9. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.

    Footnote 9
  10. In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 829.

    Footnote 10
  11. The voters later passed Proposition 8, which restricted the right to marriage again. But in 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal constitution protected a right of same-sex marriage. (Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) 576 U.S. ___ [135 S. Ct. 2584].)

    Footnote 11
  12. People v. Savala (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 41, 60

    Footnote 12
  13. Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency (1999) 21 Cal.4th 489, 505.

    Footnote 13
  14. Hilton v. South Carolina Pub. Rys. Comm’n (1991) 502 U.S. 197, 202.

    Footnote 14
  15. “The decisions of [the supreme] court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California. Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state, and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court.” (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) The California Supreme Court has described it as “debatable” whether the opinions of the appellate division of the superior court can ever hold precedential value. (Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 774, 782, fn. 9; see also Velasquez v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1477, fn. 7; People v. Corners (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 146.)

    Footnote 15
  16. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, subd. (a).

    Footnote 16
  17. Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, 405, fn. 14.

    Footnote 17
  18. See, e.g., Jonathan L. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1083.

    Footnote 18
  19. Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, 405, fn. 14 [“Amicus curiae presentations assist the court by broadening its perspective on the issues raised by the parties. Among other services, they facilitate informed judicial consideration of a wide variety of information and points of view that may bear on important legal questions.”].

    Footnote 19
  20. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, subd. (c)(1), 8.500, subd. (g).

    Footnote 20
  21. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200, subd. (c)(1).

    Footnote 21
  22. People v. Long Beach (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 271, 276; In re Veterans’ Industries, Inc. (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 902, 924.

    Footnote 22
  23. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, subd. (c)(1), 8.882, subd. (d)(1).

    Footnote 23
  24. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, subd. (c)(4), 8.882, subd. (d)(4).

    Footnote 24
  25. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, subd. (c)(2), 8.882, subd. (d)(2).

    Footnote 25
  26. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, subd. (c)(1), 8.882, subd. (d)(2).

    Footnote 26
  27. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, subd. (c)(1), 8.212, subd. (a), 8.881, 8.882, subd. (d)(1).

    Footnote 27
  28. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200, subd. (c)(1), 8.882, subd. (d)(1).

    Footnote 28
  29. See, e.g., Legarra v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1482, fn. 3 [denying amicus curiae’s application as untimely].

    Footnote 29
  30. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, subd. (c)(3)(B), 8.882, subd. (d)(3)(B).

    Footnote 30
  31. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, subd. (c)(3)(A)(i), 8.882, subd. (d)(3)(A)(i).

    Footnote 31
  32. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200, subd. (c)(3)(A)(ii), 8.882, subd. (d)(3)(A)(ii).

    Footnote 32
  33. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200, subd. (c)(5). This requirement is not listed in the California Rules of Court for the appellate division of superior courts.

    Footnote 33
  34. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.25, subd. (a), 8.200, subds. (c)(1), (c)(4), 8.212, subd. (c)(1), 8.882, subds. (d)(1), (d)(4).

    Footnote 34
  35. Compare Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.520, subd. (f), 8.882, subd. (d), with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200, subd. (c).

    Footnote 35
  36. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512, subd. (c)(2).

    Footnote 36
  37. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(1).

    Footnote 37
  38. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(1).

    Footnote 38
  39. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(3).

    Footnote 39
  40. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subds. (f)(5)–(f)(6).

    Footnote 40
  41. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subds. (f)(5).

    Footnote 41
  42. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subds. (f)(5)–(f)(6).

    Footnote 42
  43. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(4)(A)(i).

    Footnote 43
  44. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(4)(A)(ii).

    Footnote 44
  45. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(4)(B).

    Footnote 45
  46. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(2).

    Footnote 46
  47. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(2).

    Footnote 47
  48. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(2).

    Footnote 48
  49. See, e.g., People v. Rodriguez (May 3, 2012, No. S187680) ___Cal.4th___ [2012 Cal. LEXIS 4596, at *1] [denying amicus curiae’s application as untimely].

    Footnote 49
  50. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.212, subds. (c)(1)–(2), 8.520, subds. (f)(1), (f)(5).

    Footnote 50
  51. See, e.g., Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.29, subd. (c).

    Footnote 51
  52. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.44, subd. (a)(1)(A).

    Footnote 52
  53. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.44, subd. (a)(1)(B).

    Footnote 53
  54. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(7).

    Footnote 54
  55. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(7).

    Footnote 55
  56. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, subd. (f)(7).

    Footnote 56
  57. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.256, 8.516, subd. (a)(2), 8.524; Cal. Const., art VI, §§ 2–3.

    Footnote 57
  58. People v. Brigham (1979) 25 Cal.3d 283, 287.

    Footnote 58
  59. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.256, subd. (c)(2), 8.524, subd. (g).

    Footnote 59
  60. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.256, subd. (c)(2), 8.524, subd. (g); see, e.g., In re E.J. (July 15, 2009, No. S156933) ___Cal.4th___ [2009 Cal.LEXIS 6924, at *1] [“Amicus curiae’s motion for oral argument is also denied.”].

    Footnote 60
  61. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256, subd. (d)(1).

    Footnote 61
  62. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.256, subd. (c)(2).

    Footnote 62
  63. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256, subds. (b), (d)(1).

    Footnote 63
  64. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256, subd. (c)(2).

    Footnote 64
  65. See, e.g., Misc. Order No. 021115 (4th Dist., Div. 1, Feb. 11, 2015), available here; contra, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256, subd. (c)(2) [“Each side is allowed 30 minutes for argument.”].

    Footnote 65
  66. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256, subd. (c)(2).

    Footnote 66
  67. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524, subds. (a)–(e).

    Footnote 67
  68. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524, subd. (g).

    Footnote 68
  69. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524, subd. (f)(1).

    Footnote 69
  70. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524, subd. (g).

    Footnote 70
  71. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524, subd. (g).

    Footnote 71
  72. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524, subds. (f)(3), (g).

    Footnote 72
  73. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524, subd. (f)(2).

    Footnote 73
  74. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (g).

    Footnote 74
  75. Cal. Const., art. VI, § 12, subd. (b) [“The Supreme Court may review the decision of a court of appeal in any cause.”], emphasis added; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (b) [“The Supreme Court may order review of a Court of Appeal decision . . . .”], emphasis added; but see Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 11, subd. (a), 12, subd. (d) [automatic appeals to the California Supreme Court in death penalty cases]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.600, subd. (a) [same].

    Footnote 75
  76. Jud. Council of Cal., Statewide Caseload Trends at p. 8 (2014), available here.

    Footnote 76
  77. Id. at p. 8; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.500, subd. (b)(4), 8.512, subd. (d)(1), 8.528, subd. (d).

    Footnote 77
  78. Jud. Council of Cal., Statewide Caseload Trends at p. 8 (2014).

    Footnote 78
  79. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (g)(1).

    Footnote 79
  80. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (g)(1).

    Footnote 80
  81. See, e.g., People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1220, fn. 1 [the court noting the significance of the numerous letters and briefs it received from amici].

    Footnote 81
  82. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (b)(1).

    Footnote 82
  83. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subds. (e), (g).

    Footnote 83
  84. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512, subd. (b)(1).

    Footnote 84
  85. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512, subd. (b)(1).

    Footnote 85
  86. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (g)(1).

    Footnote 86
  87. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.44, subd. (a)(4).

    Footnote 87
  88. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.25, subd. (a), 8.500, subd. (g)(1).

    Footnote 88
  89. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (g)(2).

    Footnote 89
  90. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.504, subd. (e).

    Footnote 90
  91. Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.504, subd. (e)(2), 8.1115, subd. (c).

    Footnote 91
  92. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (b)(1).

    Footnote 92
  93. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (b)(1).

    Footnote 93
  94. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (b)(2).

    Footnote 94
  95. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500, subd. (b)(3).

    Footnote 95
Navigate to the Top