CALIFORNIA DEFENDER

fol Su GIMME 5 de WHAT- EVERY LAWYER SHOULD KNOW de st< of ABOUT STARE DECISIS ria 40 First published at 28:4IA County Bar Update (April2008) A] ev By Benjamin G. Shatz gi Certified appellate specialist with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP af ar One of the very first concepts taught 153 Cal.App.4th 347,353-354 [stare deci­ w in law school is the doctrine of stare de­ sis requires a superior court to follow a ci: cisis. This doctrine comes from the Latin published court of appeal decision, even th phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere, if the trial judge believes the appellate p< meaning to adhere to precedent and decision was wrongly decided].) ra not unsettle what is established. (In re Thus, a court of appeal decision from oJ Osborne (9th Cir. 1996) 76 F.3d 306, 309.) the Fourth District, Division Two (cover­ w The core of the doctrine is often sim­ ing Riverside and San Bernardino Coun- . C{ ply stated that the decisions of higher ties), is just as binding on a superior courts are binding precedent on lower court in Sacramento as a decision from C< courts. For law school purposes, this the Third District, which is the court 0 •mderstanding typically suffices. But with appellate jurisdiction over a Sacra­ (1 wyers in practice - especially those mento judge's rulings. (See In re Pope, v, m California- must understand much 2008 WL 73683.) Philosophically, there l more. Here are five key points highlight­ is only one California Court of Appeal, s: ing and contrasting stare decisis under albeit administratively divided into il California and federal law. tiered court system with a Supreme districts (and sometimes subdivided a Court, courts of appeal, and superior into divisions). (Auto Equity Sales,Inc. v. 1. Geography Matters in Federal courts. Supreme Court decisions bind Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) F Practice. The basics of federal stare all lower courts - and this is true no ~ decisis are easily understood. Decisions matter how old the Supreme Court 3. Horizontal Stare Decisis Oper­ t of the United States Supreme Court opinion might be. (Lawrence Tractor Co. ates Differently Between Federal and 1 bind all other federal courts; decisions v. Carlisle Ins. Co. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d California Practice. So much for vertical J of the various Circuit Courts of Appeals 949, 954;Mehrv. Superior Court (1983) 139 stare decisis (i.e., the precedential effect bind the federal district courts located Cal.App.3d 1044, 1049 fn. 3.) Similarly, of decisions on higher or lower courts). within each circuit; and the decisions of decisions from the courts of appeal bind What about horizontal stare decisis (i.e., district courts generally have no bind­ the superior courts. There is a difference, the effect of decisions by courts at the ing precedential effect. Thus, a district however, in the geographic reach of same level)? In the federal system, an court judge in California is not bound to California appellate decisions. opinion from one circuit court of ap­ follow precedent from any circuit court The California Court of Appeal is di­ peals may be persuasive precedent, but except published decisions from the vided into six geographic districts, and is not binding on other courts of appeals. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which some districts are further subdivided (Hart v. Massanari (9th Cir. 2001) 266 F.3d has appellate jurisdiction over Califor­ into divisions, some of which have geo­ 1155, 1172-1173.) Thisallowsthecircuits nia's federal courts. In other words, graphic boundaries (e.g., the Fourth Dis­ to reach contrary decisions suitable for geography - specifically whether a trict, Division 3, covers Orange County). decision by the Supreme Court. given district court sits within a given Under the federal scheme, only the But within the Ninth Circuit, hori­ circuit- has substantive meaning in decisions from the appellate court that zontal stare decisis operates to bind federal practice. would entertain an appeal from a given subsequent panels. Thus, the first panel trial court's decision binds that trial of Ninth Circuit judges to publish an 2. There Is Only One California court. But under the California scheme, opinion on an issue binds not only dis­ Jurt of Appeal. In contrast, although there are no such geographical boundar­ trict courts within the circuit, but also .ne California court system seems to ies to decisions of the California Court subsequent Ninth Circuit panels. For mirror the structure of the federal courts, of Appeal: Every superior court must the Ninth Circuit to overrule its own there is no geographical component to follow any published decision from any precedent, it must issue an en bane de­ stare decisis under California law. Like District (and any division) of any court cision. (Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber (9th Cir. i the federal courts, California has a three- of appeal. (Cuccia v. Superior Court (2007) 2003) 328 F.3d 1181, 1185 [panel must

70 J 2 CALIFORNIA DEFENDER

follow prior panel decisions, unless a court ordinarily will follow an appellate Supreme Court decision, an en bane opinion emanating from its own district, decision, or subsequent legislation un­ even though it is not bound to do so." CPDA dermines its precedential value].) (McCallum v. McCallum (1987) 190 Cal. In contrast, there is no horizontal App.3d 308, 315.) CONTINUING stare decisis between appellate panels of the California Court of Appeal. (Mar­ 5. Stare Decisis Across Court Sys­ riage of Shahan (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 398, tems. Federal courts applying state law LEGAL 409.) Panels of the California Court of are bound by the highest state authority Appeal are not bound by prior panels, to have ruled. Thus, the Ninth Circuit EDUCATION even within the same district. Thus, any may be bound by a decision of the Cali­ given district or division of the court of fornia Supreme Court, or the California Defending Gang and Other Cases appeal may disagree with a decision by Court of Appeal, if that is the highest any other district or division. Hence, court to have addressed the issue of July 9-10, 2010 while the U.S. Supreme Court regulates state law. (Johnson v. Frankell (1997) 520 Monterey Beach Hotel circuit-splits from the 13 federal circuits, U.S. 911,916 [federal courts must follow the California Supreme Court oversees state's highest court on question of state potential splits from effectively 19 sepa­ law]; Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman Basic Trial Skills Institute rate courts of appeal (i.e., counting each (9th Cir.2003) 328 F.3d 1088, 1099 [federal of the six districts, plus the divisions courts must follow state's intermediate July 27-31, 2010 within those districts as independent appellate courts, absent convincing University of San Diego courts). evidence that the state's highest court As for the federal and state supreme would rule differently].) courts, each are free to overrule their State courts applying federal law are MCLE Specialty Areas own precedents. (State Oil Co. v. Khan bound by decisions of the U.S. Supreme August 28, 2010 (1997) 522 U.S. 3,20;Freeman & Mills,Inc. Court. (Elliott v. Albright (1989) 209 v. Belcher Oil Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 85, 93.) Cal.App.3d 1028, 1034.) But they are San Diego Kona Kai Resort Under what circumstances a high court not bound by district or circuit court should exercise its discretion to reverse decisions - although such rulings are itself, however, is topic of much schol­ entitled to "substantial deference." (Yee 2-Day Homicide Defense arly debate. (E.g., Michael Sinclar, Prec­ v. City of Escondido (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d Sept. 10-11, 2010 ede71t, Super-Precedent, 14 Geo. Mason L. 1349, 1351.) Finally, federal court deci­ Rev. 363 (2007); Lawrence B. Solum, The sions on state law are not binding on Monterey Hyatt Regency Supreme Court in Bondage: Constitutional state courts. (Choate v. County of Orange Stare Decisis, Legal Formalism, and the (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 312, 327-328.) Future of Unenumerated Rights, 9 U. Pa. These five points are merely the tip Defender Management Institute J. Const. L. 155 (Oct. 2006) [discussing of the iceberg.. Many interesting com­ Oct. 1-2, 2010 "super-stare decisis"].) plications lurk beneath the surface of the seemingly simple doctrine of stare Palm Springs Doral Desert 4. Superior Courts Are Free to decisis. For further general guidance Princess Choose When Faced with Conflicting see: Goelz & Watts, Rutter Group Prac­ Precedent. Because there is no hori­ tice Guide: Federal Ninth Circuit Civil zontal stare decisis in California, and Appellate Practice§§ 8:150-8:206 (The Strategies For Final Argument because geography does not influence Rutter Group 2007); Eisenberg, Hor­ October 22-23, 2010 the precedential power of a Court of vitz & Wiener, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Appeal decision, a superior court may Appeals & Writs§§ 14:191-14:197 (The Palm Springs Doral Desert face the prospect of simultaneously be­ Rutter Group 2007). Princess ing bound to follow conflicting Court of Appeal decisions. In this situation, the trial court is free to pick which of the Felony Defense decisions to follow. (Auto Equity Sales, supra,57Cal.2datp. 456 ["wherethereis Nov. 5-6, 2010 more than one appellate court decision, Yosemite National Park and such appellate decisions are con­ flict," the superior court "can and must make a choice between the conflicting Sex Crimes Defense Practice decisions"].) Dec. 4, 2010 Some superior court judges may view this freedom as more theoretical than Palm Springs Doral Desert Princess real, however. In practice, "a superior

2 0 1 0 71