Kowal Law Group Logo
legal work

Changes to the California Supreme Court Publication Rules

Tim Kowal     April 28, 2021

Attorneys are aware how important it is to confirm the precedential value of a case. One factor that can greatly disturb the citability of an appellate decision is whether the California Supreme Court has decided to review it. Practitioners may be aware that, until a 2016 change to the rules, when the Supreme Court granted review of a published appellate decision it became non-citable instantly. So if you had found the perfect decision on all fours with your case, you would pray the Supreme Court would leave your smoking-gun case well alone.

That changed five years ago when California Rules of Court rule 8.1115 was amended. With that amendment, the mere granting of review of your published smoking-gun case did not itself depublish it. It was a welcome change.

This week, however, the Supreme Court amended rule 8.1115. Fortunately, the amendment is arguably rather sensible. But it is not the kind of amendment that actually amends the rule itself. The Supreme Court does not want to confuse things. Instead, the amendment just requires practitioners to follow a new administrative order. And the Advisory Committee Comment to the rule. And maybe a few cases.

Again, the Supreme Court does not want this to be confusing.

As David Ettinger reports, under the new procedure, whenever the Supreme Court grants review, the order granting review "incorporates" the Court's April 21, 2021 Administrative Order. That order to be incorporated in all future orders granting review of published Court of Appeal decisions provides that the decision may still be cited for persuasive value and also to "establish[] the existence of a conflict." Based on that conflict, trial courts may "exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, to choose between sides of any such conflict."

The change appears to be this. Previously, when your recent "smoking gun" appellate decision disagreed with a prior appellate decision, and the Supreme Court granted review of your recent smoking-gun decision, a trial court was bound under the text of rule 8.1115 and Auto Equity Sales to follow the prior decision. That is because, while your recent smoking-gun decision was not automatically depublished, its value was diminished by the grant of review to "potentially persuasive only" (rule 8.1115(e)(1)), while the prior decision still enjoyed absolutely binding effect under Auto Equity Sales. Apparently the Court felt that, given it was just as likely to overturn the prior decision as your recent smoking-gun decision, there was no reason the rule should favor one over the other while review was pending.

Shorter: While Supreme Court review is pending, you can still cite your smoking gun case, and the trial court may follow it, even if another appellate court disagrees with it. 

But that is not quite all. To learn about a further amendment to the rule, we need to look to the Comments. The new Comment confirms that, when your recent smoking-gun case is taken up for review, trial courts are not required to follow it "on the issue in conflict." Which makes sense. But then comes something rather more surprising: "Nor does such a Court of Appeal opinion ... have any precedential effect regarding any aspect or holding of the Court of Appeal opinion outside the part(s) or holding(s) in conflict."

Meaning, if your smoking-gun case was taken up for review on an issue completely separate from your smoking-gun issue, the case loses precedential effect on your smoking-gun issue, too, as collateral damage.

Mr. Ettinger also notes the changes are not retroactive. So for grants of review before April 21, 2021, you will have to look to the old rule 8.1115. Which is to say, to the same language of 8.1115, which the Supreme Court has not changed in any event. Just forget everything else we just said.

Again, the Supreme Court does not want any of this to be confusing.

Tim Kowal helps trial attorneys and clients win their cases and avoid error on appeal. He co-hosts the Cal. Appellate Law Podcast at www.CALPodcast.com, and publishes a newsletter of appellate tips for trial attorneys at www.tvalaw.com/articles. Contact Tim at [email protected] or (714) 641-1232.

Tim Kowal is an appellate specialist certified by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization. Tim helps trial attorneys and clients win their cases and avoid error on appeal. He co-hosts the Cal. Appellate Law Podcast at CALpodcast.com, and publishes summaries of cases and appellate tips for trial attorneys. Contact Tim at [email protected] or (949) 676-9989.
Get “Not To Be Published,” a weekly digest of these articles, delivered directly to your inbox!

Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.


"At common law, barratry was 'the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up suits and quarrels' (4 Blackstone, Commentaries 134) and was punished as a misdemeanor."

Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1187

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

— James Madison, Federalist 62

"So far as the beginnings of law had theories, the first theory of liability was in terms of a duty to buy off the vengeance of him to whom an injury had been done whether by oneself or by something in one's power. The idea is put strikingly in the Anglo-Saxon legal proverb, 'Buy spear from side or bear it,' that is, buy off the feud or fight it out."

— Roscoe Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

— Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"Upon putting laws into writing, they became even harder to change than before, and a hundred legal fictions rose to reconcile them with reality."

— Will Durant

"A judge is a law student who grades his own papers."

— H.L. Mencken

"Counsel on the firing line in an actual trial must be prepared for surprises, including requests for amendments of pleading. They cannot ask that a judgment afterwards obtained be set aside merely because their equilibrium was slightly disturbed by an unexpected motion."

Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334

"It may be that the court is thought to be excessively legalistic. I should be sorry to think that it is anything else."

— Hon. Sir Owen Dixon, Chief Justice of Australia

"God made the angels to show Him splendor, … Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind."

— Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons

"Moot points have to be settled somehow, once they get thrust upon us. If an assertion cannot be proved, then it must be settled some other way, and nearly all of these ways are unfair to somebody."

—T.H. White, The Once and Future King

Copyright © 2024 Kowal Law Group
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram