Dismissal of review in takings case restored precedential effect of Court of Appeal opinion

When the Supreme Court dismissed review in Bottini v. City of San Diego last week, it missed an opportunity to make law on what regulatory action constitutes a taking, for which a government must give just compensation.  But, as appellate lawyer and former Chair of the State Bar Board of Trustees Michael Colantuono reminded me, the court’s action also reinstates the full precedential effect of the Court of Appeal’s opinion in the case. Used to be that the Supreme Court’s grant of review depublished the Court of Appeal opinion in the case, making the opinion unciteable.  Three years ago, however, the court changed the rule, allowing a published opinion to remain published pending review, although the opinion’s precedential effect is diluted; before the Supreme Court decides the case, the Court of Appeal opinion “has no binding or precedential effect, and may be cited for potentially persuasive value only.”  But, if review is…

Read more detail on Recent Judiciary posts –

This entry was posted in Judiciary and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply