The California Courts of Appeal are the state intermediate appellate court system of the U.S. state of California. The state is geographically divided along county lines into six appellate districts.California Government Code Sections 69100-69107. The California Courts of Appeal review appeals from the Superior Courts of California, and any further appeal is to the Supreme Court of California.
The California Courts of Appeal form the largest state-level intermediate appellate court system in the United States, with 106 justices.
Jurisdiction and responsibility
The decisions of the California Courts of Appeal are binding on the Superior Courts of California, and both the Courts of Appeal and the Superior Courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of California. Notably, all published California appellate decisions are binding on all trial courts.Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court,, 57 Cal. 2d 450, 369 P.2d 937, 20 Cal. Rptr. 321 (1962). This is distinct from the practice in the federal courts and in other state court systems in which trial courts are bound only by the appellate decisions from the particular circuit in which it sits, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States or the state supreme court.See, e.g., Reiser v. Residential Funding Corp., 380 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2004). In contrast, "there is no horizontal stare decisis in the California Court of Appeal";Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd., 167 Cal. App. 4th 1187, 1193 (2008). Google Scholar incorrectly renders the title of the court that filed this opinion as the Court of Appeals. Court of Appeal decisions are not binding between divisions or even between panels of the same division.McCallum v. McCallum, 190 Cal. App. 3d 308, 315 n.4 (1987). Google Scholar incorrectly renders the title of the court that filed this opinion as the Court of Appeals.
Thus, all superior courts (and hence all litigants) are bound by the decision of a Court of Appeal if it is the only published California precedent that articulates a point of law relevant to a particular set of facts, even if the superior court would have decided differently if writing on a fresh slate. However, another Court of Appeal division or district may rule differently on that point of law after a litigant seeks relief from an adverse trial court ruling that faithfully applied existing precedent. In that instance, all superior courts are free to pick and choose which precedent they wish to follow until the state supreme court settles the issue for the entire state, although a superior court confronted with such a conflict will normally follow the view of its own Court of Appeal (if it has already taken a side on the issue).
It is customary in federal courts and other state courts to indicate in case citations the particular circuit or district of an intermediate appellate court that issued the decision cited. But because the decisions of all six California appellate districts are equally binding upon all trial courts, district numbers are traditionally omitted in California citation style unless an actual interdistrict conflict is at issue.
All California appellate courts are required by the California Constitution to decide criminal cases in writing with reasons stated (meaning that even in criminal appeals where the defendant's own lawyer has tacitly conceded that the appeal has no merit,The so-called Wende appellate procedure was upheld as compatible with the Fourteenth Amendment in Smith v. Robbins, . the appellate decision must summarize the facts and law of the case and review possible issues independently before concluding that the appeal is without merit).People v. Kelly, 40 Cal. 4th 106, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98, 146 P.3d 547 (2006). Such procedure is not mandated for civil cases, but for certain types of civil cases where a liberty interest is implicated, the Courts of Appeal may, but are not required to, follow a similar procedure.Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal. 4th 529, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856, 150 P.3d 738 (2007).In re Sade C., 13 Cal. 4th 952, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 771, 920 P.2d 716 (1996). Most Court of Appeal opinions are not published and have no precedential value;Schmier v. Supreme Court, 78 Cal. App. 4th 703 (2000). The plaintiff in this case unsuccessfully challenged the selective publication policy as unconstitutional. The court retorted: "Appellant either misunderstands or ignores the realities of the intermediate appellate process." The court went on to describe the variety of frivolous appeals regularly encountered by the Courts of Appeal, and concluded: "Our typical opinions in such cases add nothing to the body of stare decisis, and if published would merely clutter overcrowded library shelves and databases with information utterly useless to anyone other than the actual litigants therein and complicate the search for meaningful precedent." the opinions that are published are included in the official reporter, California Appellate Reports.
In addition, West Publishing traditionally included Court of Appeal opinions in its unofficial reporter, the Pacific Reporter. In 1959, West began publishing both Supreme Court and Court of Appeal opinions in West's California Reporter, and no longer included Court of Appeal opinions in the Pacific Reporter.
Due to their huge caseloads and volume of output, the Courts of Appeal in turn see the largest number of decisions appealed to the state supreme court and the Supreme Court of the United States. A few famous U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as Burnham v. Superior Court of California, came to the high court on writ of certiorari to one of the Courts of Appeal after the state supreme court had denied review. Many Court of Appeal opinions have become nationally prominent in their own right, such as the 1959 opinion that carved out the first judge-made exception to the at-will employment doctrine, the 1980 opinion that authorized a cause of action for wrongful life, and the 1984 opinion that created the right to Cumis counsel.
History The California Constitution originally made the state Supreme Court the only appellate court for the whole state. As the state's population skyrocketed during the 19th century, the Supreme Court was expanded from three to seven justices, and then the Court began hearing the majority of appeals in three-justice panels. The Court became so overloaded that it frequently issued summary dispositions in minor cases, meaning that it was merely saying "affirmed" or "reversed" without saying why. The state's second Constitution, enacted in 1879, halted that practice by expressly requiring the Court to issue every dispositive decision in writing "with reasons stated."Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 14. In 1885, the Legislature authorized the Supreme Court to appoint three commissioners to help with its work, and then authorized two more commissioners in 1889. Despite implementing all these measures, the Supreme Court was no longer able to keep up with the state's rapidly growing appellate caseload by the end of the 19th century. In 1899, the Legislature proposed a constitutional amendment to create what were then called the District Courts of Appeal, but in 1900, only 47 percent of the electorate voted "yes" and the amendment failed to pass. In 1903, the Legislature tried again, and on November 8, 1904, the electorate adopted the amendment with 72 percent voting in favor.
The District Courts of Appeal originally consisted of three appellate districts, headquartered in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, with three justices each. These first nine justices were appointed by Governor George Pardee. Each district was assigned an ordinal number (i.e., first, second, and third). The first nine justices included the five members of the Supreme Court Commission, which had been simultaneously abolished by the same constitutional amendment. The original nine justices of the District Courts of Appeal took office on April 10, 1905. The original terms were staggered, but starting with the 1906 election all justices ran for 12-year terms.
In 1966, the word "District" was dropped from the official names of the Courts of Appeal by another constitutional amendment which extensively revised the sections governing the state judiciary. This left Florida as the sole state in the United States with "District Courts of Appeal." Since then, each of the Courts of Appeal has been named officially as "the Court of Appeal of the State of California" for a particular numbered appellate district.
A serious flaw in the 1904 constitutional amendment is that it authorized the Legislature to create new appellate districts and to add divisions of three justices to existing appellate districts, but it did not authorize the Legislature to add one or two justices at a time to existing divisions. This explains why the First and Second Districts were traditionally expanded by adding more divisions, and then much of the Second District's territory was broken off to form the Fourth and Fifth Districts. The 1966 constitutional amendment authorized the Legislature to create divisions consisting of "a presiding justice and 2 or more associate justices."Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 3. Relying on the words "or more", the Legislature expanded the existing divisions of the First and Second Districts from three to four justices each, but chose to expand the other appellate districts by adding more justices one by one, rather than more divisions.
Appointment, retention, and removal Originally, after appointment by the governor, incumbents ran in potentially contested head-to-head elections. However, after a particularly bitter contest in 1932, the California Constitution was amended to provide for the present retention election system, where the voters are given the choice to retain or reject a candidate. To date no incumbent has been denied retention.
To fill a vacant position, the governor must first submit a candidate's name to the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation of the State Bar of California, which prepares and returns a thorough confidential evaluation of the candidate. Next, the governor officially nominates the candidate, who must then be evaluated by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which consists of the Chief Justice of California, the Attorney General of California, and a senior presiding justice of the Court of Appeal. The Commission holds a public hearing and if satisfied with the nominee's qualifications, confirms the nomination, which enables the nominee to be sworn in and begin serving immediately.
All nominees must have been members of the State Bar of California for at least 10 years preceding their nomination. Typical nominees include experienced attorneys in private practice, current superior court judges, and current federal district judges. Some nominees have taught as adjunct professors or lecturers in law schools, but tenured professors are extremely rare. Another path to the Courts of Appeal is to work for the governor, especially as appointments secretary, cabinet secretary, or legal affairs secretary.
Terms of both Court of Appeal and Supreme Court justices are 12 years. However, if a nominee is confirmed to an existing seat partway through a term, the nominee can only serve the remaining period of the term before standing for election. All California appellate justices must undergo retention elections every 12 years at the same time as the general gubernatorial election, in which the sole question is whether to retain the justice for another 12 years. If a majority votes "no," the seat becomes vacant and may be filled by the governor. While Supreme Court justices are voted on by the entire state, Court of Appeal justices are voted on only by the residents of their districts.