The Supreme Court today announced it will hear only four cases next month. With over half of the term’s calendars concluded or scheduled, the court is on track to issue just 38 or 39 opinions, which would be an historic low. (See here.) However, the court also started last term slowly and picked up the pace later, ending with 58 opinions.
On Wednesday, February 5, in Sacramento, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue or issues presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself):
Whitehead v. City of Oakland: Does a liability release agreement between a bicyclist and the organizer of a recreational bicycle ride extend to the alleged negligent maintenance of a public road by a municipality named in the agreement but not a party to it? In November, the court asked for supplemental briefing on this issue: “Does the release in this case extend to a claim that the City of Oakland violated Government Code section 835 et seq., in light of Civil Code section 1668, which provides in relevant part that ‘[a]ll contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own . . . violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law’? (Cf. City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, 763 [Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92 ‘found a release of liability for future ordinary negligence void on public policy grounds other than those set forth in section 1668’].)” The court granted review just last May. The last supplemental brief was filed only yesterday. More about the case here and here.
New England Country Foods v. Vanlaw Food Products: The court agreed in February 2024 to answer this question for the Ninth Circuit, “Is a contractual clause that substantially limits damages for an intentional wrong but does not entirely exempt a party from liability for all possible damages valid under California Civil Code Section 1668?” The court sent its oral argument letter just seven days ago. More about the case here and here.
People v. Antonelli: (1) Is defendant entitled to resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 on the ground that malice could be imputed to the defendant under the provocative act theory of murder for convictions occurring before 2009 (see Sen. Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.); People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653)? (2) Did the trial court err by not considering the jury instructions in determining defendant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law for a provocative act murder? The court granted review in October 2023. More about the case here.
People v. Oyler: This is an automatic direct appeal from a June 2009 judgment of death. The court’s website does not list issues for death penalty appeals. Counsel was appointed in July 2013. Initial briefing was completed in November 2018. In December 2023, the court issued its routine order for supplemental briefing “[i]f appellant contends any changes in the law (including any ameliorative statute) since the filing of the reply brief are relevant to this appeal.” After numerous extensions, the defendant filed a 32-page supplemental brief in October 2024. The Attorney General filed his supplemental brief in November and the defendant filed a reply on December 31.
[February 2 update: on January 31, the court asked counsel in Oyler to address at oral argument “whether the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the ‘actual killer’ or ‘major participant/reckless indifference’ components of the current felony murder statute (Pen. Code, § 189, subd. (e)(1), (3)), if regarded as error, may be deemed harmless in light of the evidence introduced at trial and its relationship to these components.” (Link added.)]
Briefs for the cases will soon be posted here. The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by May 5.
[January 17 update: This will be the first Supreme Court oral argument session in Sacramento in five years. Merrill Balassone gives details in a California Courts news release. (See also here, here, and here.)]
