Yesterday's Recorder had more coverage (subscription required) of last week's argument in Mervyn's/Branick, including this observation: "In the heat of argument in front of dozens of your peers in the state's highest court, misunderstanding a question is an easy thing to do."
Also, the San Francisco Chronicle reported last week that "[t]he justices did not tip their hands on that issue [i.e., whether Prop. 64 applies to pending cases], but several expressed interest in an argument that would allow many of the pending suits to survive Prop. 64 by substituting new plaintiffs who claimed harm from the challenged business practices."
Comments