Over the last few terms, the Supreme Court has been reverting to a past practice of having the heaviest oral argument calendars towards the end of the term. That changed for a time when a policy instituted in 2016–2017 had the calendars more evenly balanced throughout the term.
Consistent with recent years, the court last week announced a nine-case early-May calendar, the 2025–2026 term’s biggest. (May is the only month with two argument calendars.) It’s the third-to-last of 11 calendars for the term. (A footnote: the early-May calendar includes one case that was scheduled for, but continued from, the April calendar.)
For the term so far, there were two-case calendars in September, December, and January; three-case calendars in November and April; a four-case calendar in October; a five-case calendar in February; and a seven-case calendar in March.
Four of the nine early-May cases are on our list of the 10 oldest, unargued, non-capital cases.
Because of Justice Jenkins’s October retirement, there will be — for the seventh straight calendar — a Court of Appeal justice sitting pro tem in each case. The pro tems will be named later. (See: Why does the Supreme Court use pro tems?)
On Wednesday and Thursday, May 6 and 7, in San Francisco, the court will hear these cases (with the issue or issues presented as summarized by court staff or, if indicated, limited by the court itself):
Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assn. v. County of Los Angeles: Number eight on the 10-oldest-cases list. “(1) Does the board of a county public employee retirement system established under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL) (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) have authority under the California Constitution and relevant statutes to create employment classifications and set salaries for employees of the retirement system? (2) Does Government Code section 31522.1 impose a ministerial duty on a county board of supervisors to include in the county’s employment classifications and salary ordinance the classifications and salaries adopted by the board of a county public employee retirement system for employees of that system? (3) Do Proposition 162 (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17) and CERL override a county board of supervisors’ constitutional authority to establish civil service classifications, set salaries, and maintain a civil service system for county employees under article XI of the California Constitution?” The court granted review in October 2024. More about the case here and here.
Gilead Tenofovir Cases: Number four on the 10-oldest-cases list. “Does a drug manufacturer have a duty of reasonable care to users of a drug it is currently selling, which is not alleged to be defective, when making decisions about the commercialization of an allegedly safer, and at least equally effective, alternative drug?” The court granted review in May 2024. More about the case here and here.
Fox Paine & Co. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co.: “(1) Where an insurance policyholder alleges loss sufficient to reach an excess policy, but that insurer’s obligation to pay is not yet triggered because underlying layers are not yet exhausted, may the policyholder nevertheless seek declaratory relief against the insurer? (2) Can a policyholder ever state a claim against an excess insurer for ‘bad faith’ conduct if the underlying policy layers are not yet exhausted?” The court granted review in December 2024. More about the case here. Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief in support of two defendants.
Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County: number five on the 10-oldest-cases list. “For purposes of calculating retirement benefits for members of County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) retirement systems, does Government Code section 31461, subdivision (b)(2) exclude payments for accrued, but unused hours of annual leave that would exceed the maximum amount of leave that was earnable and payable in a calendar year?” The court granted review in April 2024. More about the case here and here.
Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, Inc.: When the court granted review in May 2025, it limited the issue to — “Is a voluntary dismissal with prejudice an appealable order if it was entered after an adverse ruling by the trial court in order to expedite an appeal of the ruling?” More about the case here.
People v. Espino: When the court un-held the former grant-and-hold case in July 2025, it directed briefing on — “Is a defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the judgment in the defendant’s criminal case includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed but for which punishment was stricken?” (Emphasis added.) More about the case here.
People v. SanMiguel: When the court granted review in December 2024, the court limited the issue to — “Did the trial court properly overrule defendant’s Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 objection to the People’s peremptory challenge of a prospective juror?” More about the case here.
Conservatorship of E.A.: “Must a conservatee demonstrate prejudice to establish that a 362-day delay in initiating a trial in a Lanterman-Petris-Short Act conservatorship proceeding violates due process and equal protection?” The court granted review in December 2024. More about the case here.
In re Spielbauer on Discipline: Number three on the 10-oldest-cases list, and the case that was continued from the April calendar. “If a victim of attorney misconduct suffers damages recoverable in tort and incurs attorney fees as a result of the misconduct, under what circumstances may the State Bar Court order restitution based on such damages and fees as a condition of the attorney’s probation? (See Sorensen v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1036.)” The court granted review in July 2024. More about the case here. Horvitz & Levy filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioner attorney.
Briefs for the cases will soon be posted here. The arguments will be live streamed. Opinions in the cases should file by August 3.
