The conclusions of the Kaldenbach and Cohen Courts that Tobacco II, a decision in which the California Supreme Court reversed [a] decertification order, raise two important questions. First, is there any evidence that lower courts are disregarding the legal holdings and policy mandates of the California Supreme Court in significant numbers, particularly in the class action context? Second, if there is such an occurrence, why are lower courts disregarding the legal holdings and policy mandates of the California Supreme Court?
UPDATE (11/16/09): Attorney Trent Norris of Arnold & Porter has a letter to the editor in today's Daily Journal published under the heading "Comment on Judges' Motives is Cheap Shot" (subscription). Trent was my co-speaker at the Recorder Roundtable on Tobacco II in July and presented (along with Will Stern) the defense perspective on the decision.