It’s been almost five months since we last listed the 10 oldest unargued, non-capital cases on the Supreme Court’s docket. Since then, seven of the cases on that list have been argued and decided or scheduled for argument, including cases number two through five. But the oldest case still tops our new list, more than three-and-a-half years after the court granted review.
To identify the cases, we look for the matters with the lowest case numbers on the court’s pending issues summaries. This methodology doesn’t account for varying amounts of briefing times or counsel requests for oral argument delays, but it nonetheless gives a decent backlog account.
The current top 10 oldies (in order of when the petition for review was filed), are:
Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A. — the court granted review in February 2023. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “Under California law, are employers permitted to use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees’ work time for payroll purposes?” Party briefing was completed in September 2023. The response to amicus curiae briefing was filed in December 2023. The court sent its oral argument letter in September 2025. It has found good cause to support one counsel’s subsequent requests for argument not to be set on multiple potential calendar dates. More about the case here.
Cohen v. Superior Court — the court granted review in September 2024. The court limited the issue to: “Does Government Code section 36900, subdivision (a) confer upon private citizens a right to redress violations of municipal ordinances?” An amicus brief primarily drafted by Horvitz & Levy asks the court to also resolve a conflict “whether [a Court of Appeal] may overrule prior decisions from the same district or division, or whether they may only disagree with such decisions.” (See here and here.) Briefing has been leisurely. Party briefing wasn’t completed until November 2025 and a response to an amicus curiae brief (not the Horvitz & Levy brief) was filed in April of this year. The court sent its oral argument letter at the end of last month. More about the case here.
Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court — the court granted review in September 2024. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “(1) Does the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) bar a social media company from disclosing an individual’s account information in response to a criminal defendant’s subpoena? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by finding that good cause supported the subpoena for third-party discovery?” Party briefing was completed in January 2025. Responses to amicus curiae briefs were filed in March and April 2025. Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus brief in the case. A supplemental brief was filed last month. No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here.
People v. Allen — the court granted review in November 2024. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “If a defendant has invoked his right to remain silent while being interrogated by a law enforcement officer, are incriminating statements obtained through a subsequent Perkins operation (i.e., the use of an undercover agent to question a jailed defendant) admissible as substantive proof of the defendant’s guilt at trial? (See Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.)” In granting review, the court also ordered, “In addition to the issue presented in the petition for review, the parties are directed to brief the additional question: What effect, if any, does the fact that the interrogating officer continued questioning after petitioner invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence have upon the admissibility of the statements subsequently obtained during the Perkins operation?” Party briefing was completed in December 2025. Responses to amicus curiae briefs were filed in April 2026. No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here and here.
People v. Hughey — the court granted review in December 2024. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “Was there sufficient evidence of asportation to support defendants’ convictions for kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a))?” Briefing was completed in November 2025. No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here.
Lathrop v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc.* — the asterisk is because, although the court granted review in January 2025, it was a grant-and-hold until September of that year when the court un-held it and ordered briefing with issues limited to: “(1) Where a party alleges that enforcement of a forum selection clause would result in a waiver of the party’s unwaivable statutory rights, what is the showing necessary to enforce (or avoid enforcement) of such a clause, and which party bears the burden of proof on the issue? (2) Under what circumstances, if any, does a stipulation to apply California law in the selected forum rebut an allegation that enforcement of a forum selection clause would result in a waiver of a party’s unwaivable statutory rights? (3) If enforcement of a choice of law clause would result in a waiver of a party’s unwaivable statutory rights, is the choice of law clause severable from the remainder of the agreement?” Party briefing was completed in June 2026. A response to amicus briefing was filed just last month. No oral argument letter has been sent. Horvitz & Levy is appellate counsel for the defendants in Lathrop and filed both the successful petition for review and a request for the Supreme Court to do just what it did, un-hold the case and order briefing. More about the case here and here.
People v. Robinson — the court granted review in February 2025. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “Is a transcript of grand jury proceedings admissible at a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing?” Party briefing was completed in March 2026. The last response to an amicus curiae brief, and a supplemental brief, were filed in July 2026. No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here.
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. — the court granted review, on its own motion!, in April 2025 and limited the issues to: “1.) Does every Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA) action necessarily include both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims? 2.) Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action?” Party briefing was completed in December 2025. Responses to amicus curiae briefing were filed in March 2026 and the court sent its oral argument letter five days later. More about the case here and here.
Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. — the court granted review in May 2025 and limited the issue to: “May a terminated employee bring a defamation claim against a former employer when the defamation allegedly contributed to the reasons for the termination of that employment or must such a claim be pursued under a wrongful discharge theory?” Party briefing was completed in November 2025. Responses to amicus curiae briefing were filed in January and February 2026. The court filed an additional amicus brief with permission just eight days ago. No oral argument letter has been sent. More about the case here.
People v. Eaton — the court granted review in May 2025. The issue as summarized by court staff is: “May a trial court reimpose a previously imposed upper term sentence under Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) where the facts underlying one or more aggravating circumstances were neither stipulated to by the defendant nor found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial (cf. Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b)(2); id., § 1172.75, subd. (d)(2))?” Briefing was completed in February 2026. The court sent its oral argument letter last month. More about the case here.
