January 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

« Legal humor blog: Lowering the Bar | Main | "High Court Will Resolve Whether Proposition 64 Is Retroactive" »

Tuesday, May 30, 2006


Beth Ross

Great summary Kimberley. I was there, and I think you got it exactly right.

I expect we will get a ruling holding that Prop 64 does apply to pending cases, accompanied by a ruling allowing those of us who got caught in the worlds between the old and new law to amend our complaints (if we can) to substitute plaintiffs with standing and to comply with CCP 382.

It was not my impression that any of the Justices -- apart from Kennard and perhaps George -- were disposed to the view that initiatives should be reviewed under a different standard than other legislative acts.

At the same time, it is hard to believe that any of them really believe that voter "intent" could actually be gleaned from the fictional presumption that voters "know the law" -- as opposed to what the voters are actually told in the ballot materials about the effect of an initiative. It will be very interesting to see what, if anything, the opinion(s) say about that!

Thanks again.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2023 Supreme Court Calendar



  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.

  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2022
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.

  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad

  • StatCounter