For over a century, the rule in California has been that when the Supreme Court grants review, the Court of Appeal's opinion, if previously published, is automatically depublished and rendered uncitable, unless the Supreme Court otherwise directs. See Former Rule of Court 8.1105, subd. (e)(1).
Effective July 1, 2016, this has changed. The Rules of Court were amended to state that a grant of review by the Supreme Court no longer automatically depublishes a published Court of Appeal opinion. Instead, a published Court of Appeal opinion "may be cited for potentially persuasive value." Rule of Court 8.1105, subd. (e)(1). However, while review is pending, the opinion "has no binding or precedential effect," and "[a]ny citation to the Court of Appeal opinion must also note the grant of review and any subsequent action by the Supreme Court." Id.
After the Supreme Court renders its decision on review, the Court of Appeal opinion then becomes both “citable and has binding or precedential effect, except to the extent it is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court or is disapproved by that court.” Id., subd. (e)(2) (emphasis added).
Since the July 1 effective date, the Supreme Court has granted review in six cases in which the Court of Appeal's opinion was published. Five of those are criminal or habeas matters; the fifth is an anti-SLAPP case, Crossroads Investors, L.P. v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 246 Cal.App.4th 529 (2016), review granted, No. S234737 (Cal. Jul. 27, 2016).
Westlaw is on top of things. The Crossroads opinion is shown with a yellow flag and a citation to the amended Rule, whereas the Court of Appeal's opinion in Laffitte, in which review was granted before the effective date of the amended Rule, is shown with a red flag.