At its Wednesday conference yesterday, the Supreme Court didn’t agree to hear any new cases, but it took several actions of note, including:
- The court depublished the opinion of the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal in Charles v. Sutter Home Winery, which upheld the dismissal of a class action that sought to require warnings under Proposition 65 — the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 — for wine containing purportedly unsafe levels of inorganic arsenic. The warnings would have alerted consumers that the wine contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. The appellate court said it was enough that general warnings were given that drinking alcohol, including wine, may increase cancer risk. Dismissal was also upheld on res judicata grounds.
- As it did at its last conference, the court — under its deferential clemency standard of review — approved a request by the governor for a recommendation to commute a murder’s life-without-parole sentence.
- The court issued three grant-and-hold orders in criminal cases.
