Image by Ray BuseWhen drafting initiative measures, there are several instances of standard language contained in those initiative measures. This article takes a brief look at several examples of that standardized language.
California law, image by Vitalii VodolazskyiIn California, as in most states, a statute is presumed to operate prospectively. Quarry v. Doe I (2012) 53 Cal.4th 945, 955. In construing statutes, there is a presumption against retroactive application unless the Legislature plainly has directed otherwise by means of express language of retroactivity or other sources that provide a clear and unavoidable implication that the Legislature intended retroactive application of the statute.
Image by TungCheungMICHELI FILES: Resorting to legislative history is generally appropriate only where statutory language is ambiguous. As the California Supreme Court has said, “Our role in construing a statute is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.
California law, image by Vitalii VodolazskyiANALYSIS – The Enrolled Bill Rule is based upon the separation of powers doctrine. However, the EBR should not be used anymore to prevent a challenge that constitutional provisions or state statutes were allegedly violated when the Legislature enacted a bill.
Capitol and flag, by Karin Hildebrand LauANALYSIS – Around the country, and at the federal level, there is an ongoing debate among legislative lawyers whether a severability clause must be included in legislation.
Illustration of a talent agent's files. (Image: Olivier Le Moal, via Shutterstock)OPINION:Every day, California’s contractors negotiate written and oral contracts for clients and other third parties. So do art dealers, retail store clerks, car brokers, insurance, real estate and talent agents, auctioneers, architects and others. If the state Supreme Court refuses review on a recently published 2nd District Court of Appeals decision, any of those transactions done without an attorney signing off on the terms will be unlawful.
A vehicle for Lyft and Uber awaits customers in Redwood City. (Photo: Sundry Photography, via Shutterstock)Proposition 22 has ignited the most expensive ballot proposition fight in California history, exemplifying the emerging 21st century battle of traditional employment-vs.-the gig economy. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is poised to weigh in.
An artist's conception of the bullet train in operation. (Image, High Speed Rail Authority) California’s bullet train may be in trouble again, as a recent court ruling and potential funding obstacles have plunged the transportation project into further uncertainty. The latest setbacks add to lingering questions over whether the $64 billion project can both meet its scheduled completion date and guarantee enough funding.
The California Supreme Court, left to right, standing: Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Carol Corrigan, Goodwin Liu, and Leondra Kruger. Seated: Kathryn Werdegar, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, and Ming Chin.Calpensions: The state Supreme Court last week agreed to hear an appeal of a groundbreaking ruling that allows cuts in the pensions earned by current state and local government workers, including judges. When judges have an obvious conflict of interest and excuse themselves from ruling on a case, the legal term is “recuse.” But the seven Supreme Court justices seem unlikely to recuse themselves from a possible landmark ruling on this Marin County pension case.