Veteran Daily Journal writer John Roemer, in the September 18 edition of his weekly Doghouse Report (see here), wrote about the use of rule 8.548 (by courts of other jurisdictions, but predominantly by the Ninth Circuit) to request that the California Supreme Court answer a state law question. (The article mentions At The Lectern.)
The piece is subtitled, “As the 9th Circuit asks the California Supreme Court to settle a conflict over military auto insurance rates affecting nearly 200,000 policyholders [see here about Coleman v. United Services Automobile Association], a look back at the certified question process one San Francisco lawyer fought to create, and at the state high court’s growing willingness to say no.”
It’s an excellent historical article, but I will quibble about saying the Supreme Court’s willingness to say no is growing. When we first wrote about rule 8.548 stuff in 2010, we came up with a count of 27 grants out of 41 requests, or almost 66 percent. From July 2018 to date, however, the court has granted 24 of the last 27 requests (not counting the pending Coleman request), which is an 89 percent acceptance rate. Yes, the court went through a short picky stage, denying two of three requests over an eight-month stretch in 2023–2024 (see here and here), but still . . . .
Related:
Asked and answered: California Supreme Court responses to Ninth Circuit questions
The constitutionality of the Supreme Court answering the Ninth Circuit’s legal questions
Justice Kruger and Judge Owens talk about the Supreme Court answering Ninth Circuit questions
The shadow docket . . . of California’s Supreme Court, part 2
Another Ninth Circuit case that didn’t quite make it to the California Supreme Court
