Powers v. City of Richmond

10 Cal.4th 85 (1995)

893 P.2d 1160

40 Cal. Rptr.2d 839

DONNA R. POWERS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

CITY OF RICHMOND, Defendant and Respondent.

Docket No. S039547.

Supreme Court of California.

May 8, 1995.

*89 COUNSEL

Pelletreau, Moses, Alderson & Cabral and Alfred A. Cabral for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Malcolm Hunter, City Attorney, and Everett Jenkins, Assistant City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

KENNARD, J.

The Legislature has provided that actions seeking disclosure of documents under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.; hereafter the PRA) may be brought and tried in superior court, and thus are within that court's original jurisdiction. ( Id., §§ 6258-6259.) The Legislature has further provided that superior court decisions in PRA cases are not appealable but instead are "immediately reviewable by petition to the appellate court for the issuance of an extraordinary writ." ( Id., § 6259, subd. (c), hereafter § 6259(c).)

(1a) We granted review in this case to decide whether section 6259(c) — making a petition for extraordinary writ the exclusive mode of appellate review in PRA actions — violates our state Constitution and in particular *90 section 11 of article VI, which states that, except when a judgment of death has been pronounced, the "courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction when superior courts have original jurisdiction...." We conclude that section 6259(c) does not violate the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the state Constitution.

I

Donna R. Powers, then a candidate for city council, requested that defendant City of Richmond disclose all expenditures by the mayor, the city council, and the city manager during the second half of fiscal year 1990-1991. The city supplied the requested information in the form of a computer-generated report. Powers and certain of her supporters (hereafter collectively plaintiffs) then requested the same information for the first half of fiscal year 1990-1991. This time, the city refused to generate a computer report and instead gave plaintiffs access to a check register in which the requested information was intermingled with information concerning the expenditures of other city departments and agencies.

Plaintiffs then began an action in superior court under the PRA to compel the city to prepare and release a computer-generated report containing only the requested information. After hearing evidence, the trial court ruled for the city. Plaintiffs then sought review in the Court of Appeal both by a petition for a writ of mandate and by direct appeal.

After soliciting and considering informal opposition concerning the merits of plaintiffs' PRA request, the Court of Appeal denied plaintiffs' writ petition summarily — that is, without holding a hearing and without issuing a written opinion. The city then moved to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal as barred under section 6259(c). In opposing the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs argued that section 6259(c) violates the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the state Constitution (art. VI, § 11) to the extent it bars direct appeal of a final order of the superior court in a proceeding in which the superior court exercises original jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal issued an opinion granting the motion to dismiss. The court interpreted the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the state Constitution as granting the Courts of Appeal power to review final judgments and orders in all proceedings (except death penalty cases) in which superior courts exercise original jurisdiction, but also as not requiring any particular form or mode of this appellate review. Concluding that extraordinary writ petitions and direct appeals are alternative modes of appellate review, the Court of Appeal held that the "appellate jurisdiction" provision *91 of the state Constitution does not deprive the Legislature of authority to specify that appellate review of superior court orders in PRA cases shall be by means of petition for extraordinary writ rather than by direct appeal.

II

(2a) Plaintiffs contend that the California Constitution, in section 11 of article VI, confers on litigants a right of direct appeal from final orders and judgments in proceedings in which superior courts exercise original jurisdiction. In their view, this constitutional right of appeal necessarily includes the rights to oral argument, a decision on the merits, and a written opinion explaining the basis of the appellate court's decision. [1]

The issue plaintiffs raise requires that we construe our state Constitution. (3) In construing constitutional provisions, the intent of the enacting body is the paramount consideration. ( Davis v. City of Berkeley (1990) 51 Cal.3d 227, 234 [ 272 Cal. Rptr. 139 , 794 P.2d 897 ].) To determine that intent, courts look first to the language of the constitutional text, giving the words their ordinary meaning. ( Ibid. ; see also, Bowens v. Superior Court (1991) 1 Cal.4th 36, 48 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 376 , 820 P.2d 600 ]; Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 [ 248 Cal. Rptr. 115 , 755 P.2d 299 ].) (2b) We begin, then, with the text of the constitutional provision on which plaintiffs rely:

"The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction when judgment of death has been pronounced. With that exception courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction when superior courts have original jurisdiction[ [2] ] and in other causes prescribed by statute. [¶] Superior courts have appellate jurisdiction in causes prescribed by statute that arise in municipal courts in their counties. [¶] The Legislature may permit appellate courts to take evidence and make findings of fact when jury trial is waived or not a matter of right." (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11.)

Nothing in the text of this provision conveys an intention to confer on litigants a right of direct appeal in cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior courts. Giving the words their ordinary meaning, the provision serves to establish and allocate judicial authority, not to define or guarantee the rights of litigants. Indeed, the provision nowhere mentions direct appeals or a "right of appeal."

*92 The state Constitution does indeed establish a number of litigant rights, but it does so in article I, entitled "Declaration of Rights," rather than in article VI, entitled "Judicial." For example, section 16 of article I states: "Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all...." Had the people of this state intended to give similar constitutional status to a "right of appeal," it is reasonable to assume that they would have used equally direct language and would have placed the right in article I with the other personal rights.

Plaintiffs may be understood to argue that the term "appellate jurisdiction" means the power to decide direct appeals and that by giving the Courts of Appeal authority to decide direct appeals in all civil cases brought in superior court, the Constitution implicitly grants litigants a right to bring direct appeals in those same civil cases.

The ordinary meaning of "appellate jurisdiction" is broader than the meaning plaintiffs would ascribe to it. A legal dictionary defines "appellate" as "[p]ertaining to or having cognizance of appeals and other proceedings for the judicial review of adjudications. " (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 97, col. 2, italics added.) The same dictionary defines "appellate jurisdiction" as "[t]he power vested in an appellate court to review and revise the judicial action of an inferior court" and as "the power of review and determination on appeal, writ of error, certiorari, or other similar process." ( Id. at p. 98, col. 1, italics added.)

The United States Supreme Court has declared that the "essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction" is "that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause." ( Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 175 [ 2 L.Ed. 60, 73 ].) Applying this definition, the high court has concluded that appellate jurisdiction includes review by writ, including the writ of habeas corpus. ( Ex Parte Watkins (1833) 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 568, 572 [ 8 L.Ed. 786, 788 ].) Courts in other states have given similar definitions of the term "appellate jurisdiction." (See, e.g., Ward School Bus. Mfg., Inc. v. Fowler (1977) 261 Ark. 100 [ 547 S.W.2d 394, 395 ] ["the review of an order or decree of an inferior court"]; Lane v. State (1944) 154 Fla. 853 [ 19 So.2d 366, 368 ] ["`the power to take cognizance of and review proceedings in an inferior court irrespective of the manner in which they are brought up, whether by appeal or writ of error'"]; In re Constitutionality of House Bill No. 222 (1936) 262 Ky. 437 [ 90 S.W.2d 692, 693 , 103 A.L.R. 1085 ] [quoting the Marbury definition of "appellate jurisdiction"]; Rudnick v. City of Jamestown (N.D. 1990) 463 N.W.2d 632, 636 ["the power of a superior court to review and revise a decision that has been rendered by an inferior court or tribunal"]; Carder v. Court of Criminal Appeals (Okla. 1979) 595 P.2d 416, 419 ["that power and jurisdiction to *93 review and correct those proceedings of inferior courts brought for determination in the manner provided by law"]; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State (1907) 107 Tex. 1 [ 106 S.W. 326, 331 ] ["`the power and authority conferred upon a superior court to rehear and determine causes which have been tried in inferior courts'"].)

As these authorities amply establish, the ordinary and widely accepted meaning of the term "appellate jurisdiction" is simply the power of a reviewing court to correct error in a trial court proceeding. By common understanding, a reviewing court may exercise this power in the procedural context of a direct appeal, a writ petition, or otherwise. Thus, a provision conferring "appellate jurisdiction" does not necessarily or strongly imply a right of litigants to bring direct appeals.

We conclude that textual analysis, which is the best indicator of the intended meaning of a constitutional provision, does not support plaintiffs' contention that the "appellate jurisdiction" provision confers on litigants a right to a direct appeal in cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior courts. To declare such a right would "violate the cardinal rule that `The Constitution is to be interpreted by the language in which it is written, and courts are no more at liberty to add provisions to what is therein declared in definite language than they are to disregard any of its express provisions.'" ( Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 799 [ 268 Cal. Rptr. 753 , 789 P.2d 934 ], quoting People v. Campbell (1902) 138 Cal. 11, 15 [ 70 P. 918 ].)

We might well stop here. This court has stated that resort to extrinsic aids to interpret a constitutional provision is justified only when the Constitution's language is ambiguous. ( Delaney v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.3d 785, 798 ; ITT World Communications, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (1985) 37 Cal.3d 859, 868 [ 210 Cal. Rptr. 226 , 693 P.2d 811 ].) Although we find no ambiguity in article VI, section 11, nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, we shall test our construction against those extrinsic aids that bear on the enactors' intent.

1966 Constitutional Revision

(4) The provision we construe here — California Constitution, article VI, section 11 — was enacted in substantially its present form [3] in 1966, when the previous article VI was repealed and its provisions revised and redistributed. *94 This comprehensive revision was largely drafted by the California Constitutional Revision Commission, [4] and a court may consult the commission's official reports to determine the intent and objective of ambiguous provisions. ( Mosk v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 474, 495 [ 159 Cal. Rptr. 494 , 601 P.2d 1030 ].) An examination of the records of the commission's official proceedings reveals that its basic objective in revising article VI was "to delete provisions which were redundant, obsolete, or unnecessary for inclusion in the Constitution, such as procedural matters which could be prescribed or provided for by statute or court rule." ( Mosk v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 496 .) By removing "unnecessary" provisions from article VI, and allowing those matters to be regulated by statute, the commission's revisions of article VI effectively broadened the scope of the Legislature's control over judicial procedures.

In its report recommending adoption of section 11 of article VI, the commission gave this explanation for its proposal: "This section collects those parts of existing Sections 4, 4b, 4e, and 5 that deal with appellate jurisdiction. Some of the existing sections contain detailed references to instances of appellate jurisdiction. The Commission deleted those references as unnecessary in the Constitution except in death penalty cases where, because of the extreme nature of the penalty, jurisdiction was given to the Supreme Court. [¶] The phrase `on questions of law alone,' as a description of appellate jurisdiction in criminal causes when judgment of death has been rendered was deleted as unnecessary since this is the ordinary scope of review in appellate courts." (Cal. Const. Revision Com., Proposed Revision (1966) p. 91.)

We have diligently researched all available records of the commission's proceedings and reports bearing on the "appellate jurisdiction" provision, and we have found therein not a single reference to a litigant's "right of appeal" and nothing that would suggest in any way that the commission understood or intended that the "appellate jurisdiction" would confer on litigants a right to a direct appeal.

The new article VI as drafted by the commission and approved by the Legislature was submitted to the voters as Proposition 1-a at the General Election held on November 8, 1966. Because the voters at this election are the enactors of the provision we here construe, their intent governs. ( Delaney v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.3d 785, 798 .) For further evidence of their intent, we consider the arguments presented in the ballot pamphlet, which *95 are "accepted sources from which to ascertain the voters' intent." ( Id. at p. 801.)

We have closely examined the ballot pamphlet for the election of November 8, 1966, and in particular those parts dealing with Proposition 1-a. The ballot pamphlet contains no mention of any "right of appeal" under the state Constitution and no suggestion that the "appellate jurisdiction" provision would have an effect not discernible from the "plain meaning" of its words.

Once again, we might well stop here. Having found no support for plaintiffs' proposed construction in either the language of the "appellate jurisdiction" provision or in sources contemporary with that provision's enactment, we would certainly be justified in declining to consider more remote and speculative evidence of the enactors' intent. But plaintiffs and the dissent argue that in adopting article VI, section 11, the voters may be presumed to have intended that the words "appellate jurisdiction" carry the meaning they had in earlier constitutional provisions as authoritatively construed by the courts. They rely on the rule that the "adoption of constitutional language similar to that in a former constitutional provision is presumed to incorporate authoritative judicial construction of the former language." ( Sarracino v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 1, 8 [ 118 Cal. Rptr. 21 , 529 P.2d 53 ].) (5) To assess the strength of this argument, we will review the historical antecedents of article VI, section 11, to determine whether, in 1966, the term "appellate jurisdiction" had an "authoritative judicial construction" that embraced a right to a direct appeal.

1849 Constitution

The earliest antecedent of the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the present state Constitution appears in the 1849 Constitution as article VI, section 4. It provided:

"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases when the matter in dispute exceeds two hundred dollars, when the legality of any tax, toll, or impost or municipal fine is in question, and in all criminal cases amounting to felony or questions of law alone. And the said Court, and each of the Justices thereof, as well as all district and county judges, shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus at the instance of any person held in actual custody. They shall also have power to issue all other writs and process necessary to the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction, and shall be conservators of the peace throughout the state."

*96 At the Constitutional Convention of 1849, [5] there was spirited debate about the merits of limiting this court's appellate jurisdiction to cases "when the matter in dispute exceeds two hundred dollars." (See Rep. of the Debates, Cal. Const. Convention 1849, pp. 225-233; hereafter 1849 Debates.) Opponents of this restriction argued that it favored the wealthy, [6] while the proponents argued that it would protect rich and poor alike from the costs of excessive litigation and that the Supreme Court's time should not be taken up with relatively minor matters. [7]

Because several of the delegates framed the issue as whether litigants in cases involving $200 or less should have a "right of appeal," [8] we have *97 carefully examined these statements to determine what the delegates understood that term to mean. Although the delegates never expressly defined the term "right of appeal," its meaning as used in the convention proceedings is fairly summarized by the remark of one delegate (Mr. Norton) that if a case were to be wrongly decided by a trial court, a litigant "should have the right to go to the highest tribunal to get justice" or the "right to go to a higher tribunal and have that decision reversed." (1849 Debates, supra, at p. 227.) [9] Significantly, the debate concerning the $200 limitation contains no discussion of review by petition for extraordinary writ as a procedure separate and distinct from the "right of appeal." Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the delegates appear to have assumed that if as to a particular matter there was no "appellate jurisdiction" — and hence no "right of appeal" — then the trial court's judgment would be final and unreviewable. [10] In short, our examination of the constitutional debates persuades us that when the delegates spoke of a "right of appeal," they used the term "appeal" to include all forms of appellate review, including but not limited to direct appeal.

This would not be an unusual or improper use of the term "appeal." As a legal term, "appeal" is generally defined as "[r]esort to a superior ( i.e., appellate) court to review the decision of an inferior ( i.e., trial) court or administrative agency" (Black's Law Dict., supra, p. 96, col. 2) or, in the words of Justice Story, as "a complaint to a superior court of an injustice done by an inferior one" ( U.S. v. Wonson 28 Fed. Cas. 745, 748 (C.C.D. Mass. 1812) (No. 16750), citing 4 Blackstone's Commentaries 312). Like the term "appellate jurisdiction," the word "appeal" is not necessarily limited to direct appeals, but may include also writ petitions and other procedural devices.

This court first had occasion to construe the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1849 Constitution in People ex rel. Mulford v. Turner (1850) 1 Cal. 143 (hereafter Turner ). There, a trial court had made an order expelling three attorneys from the bar for defiant behavior. The expelled attorneys petitioned this court to reverse the order by issuing a writ of mandate. Because the 1849 Constitution had not given this court original jurisdiction in mandate proceedings, there was a question of this court's *98 power to entertain the petition. This court concluded that it had received power to issue the writ from the part of the 1849 Constitution's "appellate jurisdiction" provision that expressly granted this court authority "to issue all other writs and process necessary to the exercise of [its] appellate jurisdiction." (1849 Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4.) Thus, this court recognized at an early date that an appellate court exercises "appellate jurisdiction" when it entertains an original proceeding in mandate for the purpose of reviewing an order or judgment of a trial court.

The "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1849 Constitution was again before this court in Haight v. Gay (1857) 8 Cal. 297 (hereafter Haight ). In that case, the defendants "sued out a writ of error" after this court had dismissed their appeal for failure to timely file the appellate record. This court granted a motion to quash the writ, relying on a statute that made direct appeal the exclusive means of appellate review for the challenged judgment, thereby barring use of the writ of error as an avenue of appellate review. The defendants contended that by restricting this court's ability to review the judgment, the statute violated the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1849 Constitution. This court rejected the defendants' attack on the constitutionality of the statute with these words:

"The appellate power of the Supreme Court is given by the fourth section of the sixth article of the Constitution, which expressly empowers this Court to issue all writs and process necessary to the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The Legislature, therefore, can pass no act impairing the exercise of this appellate power. [¶] But while the Legislature cannot substantially impair the right of appeal, it is certainly competent to regulate the mere mode in which this right must be asserted. The Constitution only empowers this Court to issue such writs and process as may be necessary to the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; if this appellate jurisdiction can be exercised without this process, then it cannot be necessary, and should not be issued." ( Haight, supra, 8 Cal. 297, 300 , italics added, original italics omitted.)

Like the delegates to the 1849 Constitutional Convention, this court appears to have viewed the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1849 Constitution as conferring or implying a "right of appeal," but this court likewise recognized that there was more than one "mode" in which this "right of appeal" might be exercised. Viewing the "writ of error" and direct appeal as alternative modes of appellate review, we concluded that the Legislature had constitutional authority to determine which mode would be permitted, so long as it did not thereby impair the exercise of the appellate power.

*99 1862 Amendment

In 1862, the 1849 Constitution was amended to provide for appellate jurisdiction in "all cases at law ... in which the demand, exclusive of interest or the value of the property in controversy amounts to three hundred dollars" and "all cases in equity" as well as "cases at law which involve the title or possession of real estate" and "all cases arising in the Probate Courts." (Cal. Const. of 1849, art. VI, § 4.)

The view that the Legislature had at least some authority to specify the manner in which courts exercised jurisdiction conferred by the 1849 Constitution received additional support in Ex Parte Harker (1875) 49 Cal. 465 . There, the petitioners had been taken into custody, in a civil case, under a writ of ne exeat. [11] They argued that this use of the common law writ violated a statute restricting the means for making arrests in civil cases. The opposing side argued that the power to issue the writ was implicit in the constitutional grant of original jurisdiction. This court ordered the petitioners discharged from custody, stating that "the mere procedure by which jurisdiction is to be exercised may be prescribed by the Legislature, unless, indeed, such regulations should be found to substantially impair the constitutional powers of the Courts, or practically defeat their exercise." ( Ex Parte Harker, supra, 49 Cal. at p. 467 .) Thus, this court construed a provision of the 1849 Constitution conferring "original jurisdiction" as limiting the Legislature's power to specify procedures for the exercise of that jurisdiction, but it defined that limit in terms of an effect on judicial powers and not in terms of how it might advantage or disadvantage litigants. As we shall see, this court later adopted the same view in construing the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1879 Constitution.

1879 Constitution

California adopted a new Constitution in 1879. Article VI, section 4, of that Constitution provided:

"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases in equity, except such as arise in Justices' Courts; also, in all cases at law which involve the title or possession of real estate, or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll, or municipal fine, or in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to three hundred dollars; also, in cases of forcible entry and detainer, and in proceedings in insolvency, and in actions to prevent or abate a nuisance, and in all *100 such probate matters as may be provided by law; also, in all criminal cases prosecuted by indictment, or information in a Court of record on questions of law alone. The Court shall also have power to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and habeas corpus, and all other writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Each of the Justices shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus to any part of the State, upon petition by or on behalf of any person held in actual custody, and may make such writs returnable before himself, or the Supreme Court, or before any Superior Court in the State, or before any Judge thereof."

This provision was the subject of debate at the 1878-1879 Constitutional Convention. (See 2, 3 Debates & Proceedings, Cal. Const. Convention 1878-1879, pp. 962-966, 1333; hereafter 1879 Debates.) Much of the debate concerned the $300 "amount in controversy" limitation on this court's appellate jurisdiction. As had occurred at the 1849 convention, some of the delegates framed the debate in terms of whether civil litigants in matters involving relatively small sums of money ought to have a "right of appeal," a term that the delegates did not pause to define. [12] The same term was also used in debating the scope of this court's appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases. [13] Once again, the absence of any discussion of the relative merits of writ petitions and direct appeals as alternative modes of appellate review, and the apparent assumption of the delegates that a trial court's judgment would not be reviewable at all if a litigant was denied a "right of appeal," [14] strongly support the conclusion that the delegates used the term "right of appeal" expansively to encompass all forms of appellate review.

As we have seen, the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1849 Constitution had received an authoritative judicial construction when the *101 1879 Constitutional Convention performed its labors. This court had established in Turner, supra, 1 Cal. 143 , that this court exercised "appellate jurisdiction" when it entertained an original writ proceeding to review an order or judgment of a trial court. And in Haight, supra, 8 Cal. 297 , this court had established that review by writ and review by direct appeal were alternative modes for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction and that the Legislature had constitutional authority to determine which mode would be available, provided it did not thereby impair the exercise of appellate power. When they adopted language similar to the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1849 Constitution, the enactors of the 1879 Constitution may be deemed to have incorporated this authoritative judicial construction.

The 1879 Constitution's grant of "appellate jurisdiction" to this court was held to be self-executing in People v. Jordan (1884) 65 Cal. 644 [ 4 P. 683 ]. There, the People appealed from a judgment for the defendant after the trial court had sustained a demurrer to an indictment charging a misdemeanor. The defendant moved to dismiss the appeal. He argued, among other things, that the appeal would not lie because the Legislature had established an appeal procedure only for those criminal prosecutions "amounting to felonies," and had established no procedure for appellate review of misdemeanor prosecutions. ( Id. at p. 645.)

This court rejected the defendant's argument, holding that because the 1879 Constitution had granted this court appellate jurisdiction in "all criminal cases prosecuted by indictment," the Legislature could not defeat that power by failing to establish a procedure for its exercise. We said: "[W]hen a certain jurisdiction has been conferred on this or any court, it is the duty of the court to exercise it; a duty of which it is not relieved by the failure of the legislature to provide a mode for its exercise." ( People v. Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. 644, 646 .)

Because the Legislature had not authorized review by extraordinary writ, we did not consider whether appellate review in that form would have satisfied the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1879 Constitution. Significantly, however, we referred to the Legislature's failure to provide "a mode" for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction ( People v. Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. 644, 646 ), thereby necessarily implying that more than one such mode was possible. In context, the word "mode" could refer only to a distinct *102 procedure for obtaining appellate review (such as direct appeal or extraordinary writ petition) and not merely to procedural rules governing direct appeals.

A reference to a "right of appeal" under the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1879 Constitution appears in this court's decision in People v. Perry (1889) 79 Cal. 105 [ 21 P. 423 ], but again the context discloses that the reference was to appellate review generally rather than to the specific procedure known as a direct appeal. The case involved a contest between two individuals claiming the same seat on San Francisco's Board of Health. The claimants litigated the dispute in a special superior court proceeding that the Legislature had established to resolve such contests. The claimant who lost in the superior court appealed to this court. The other claimant (who had prevailed in superior court) argued that the appeal did not lie because the special superior court proceeding was not among the proceedings over which the 1879 Constitution gave this court appellate jurisdiction.

This court rejected the contention, reasoning that the special proceeding was simply a form of quo warranto. [15] This court stated: "[A]nd we think this court retains jurisdiction of the case, notwithstanding the legislature may have changed the procedure, enlarged the remedy, and given it a new name. To hold otherwise would be to admit a power in the legislature to abridge our jurisdiction, and take from parties the right of appeal, by the easy device of a change of procedure, in many cases where the right and jurisdiction are unquestioned." ( People v. Perry, supra, 79 Cal. 105, 108 , italics added, original italics omitted.)

This court had occasion to construe the term "appellate jurisdiction" in In re Jessup (1889) 81 Cal. 408 [ 22 P. 742 ]. The Legislature had enacted a statute requiring a vote of five of this court's seven justices to grant a rehearing. To determine the constitutionality of the statute, we examined the provision of the 1879 Constitution granting this court appellate jurisdiction. We said: "[T]he only possible controversy is as to the extent of the power implied ex vi termini [ [16] ] by the phrase `appellate jurisdiction.' That this embraces the right to review the final judgments of the courts of original jurisdiction, — the right, in other words, to reverse, affirm, or modify them, *103 and to enforce by some appropriate mandatory process the judgment of the appellate tribunal, — will scarcely be denied." ( In re Jessup, supra, 81 Cal. 408, 465 ; see also Maxson v. Superior Court (1899) 124 Cal. 468, 473-474 [ 57 P. 379 ].) This definition of "appellate jurisdiction" — as the power or "right" of one court to correct error in a decision, order, or judgment of another court — is consistent with common legal usage, as we have seen.

This court's decision in In re Jessup, supra, 81 Cal. 408 , is significant also because it further supports the conclusion that a court may exercise "appellate jurisdiction" by means other than direct appeal. Quoting from Ex Parte Harker, supra, 49 Cal. 465, 467 , we reiterated that "`the mere procedure by which jurisdiction is to be exercised may be prescribed by the legislature, unless, indeed, such regulations should be found to substantially impair the constitutional powers of the courts, or practically defeat their exercise.'" ( In re Jessup, supra, 81 Cal. 408, 470 , italics omitted.)

1904 Amendment

In 1904, article VI, section 4 of the Constitution was amended to establish the Courts of Appeal and to transfer from this court to those courts "appellate jurisdiction on appeal from the Superior Courts in all cases at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to three hundred dollars, and does not amount to two thousand dollars; also, in all cases of forcible and unlawful entry and detainer (except such as arise in Justices' Courts), in proceedings in insolvency, and in actions to prevent or abate a nuisance; in proceedings of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition, usurpation of office, contesting elections and eminent domain, and in such other special proceedings as may be provided by law (excepting cases in which appellate jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court); also, on questions of law alone, in all criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or information in a court of record, excepting criminal cases where judgment of death has been rendered."

This court retained appellate jurisdiction over all cases in equity, cases involving title to or possession of real estate, the legality of any tax, or where the amount in controversy was $2,000 or more, and in "such probate matters as may be provided by law." (Cal. Const. of 1879, art. VI, § 4, as amended Nov. 8, 1904.)

The scope of the Legislature's authority to regulate appellate procedures was again before this court in In re Sutter-Butte By-Pass Assessment (1923) 190 Cal. 532 [ 213 P. 974 ] (hereafter Sutter-Butte ). Having authorized a drainage district to issue bonds and to assess benefited property for revenue *104 to service the bonds, the Legislature established a special validation proceeding under which three superior court judges in the most affected county would determine the validity of an assessment. The Legislature further provided that "[t]he decision of a majority of said court shall be final and conclusive, and no motion for a new trial of said proceeding shall be allowed, and no appeal from the judgment given and made by said court shall be had." (Stats. 1919, ch. 520, § 8, p. 1094.)

When property owners affected by one such assessment attempted to appeal a validation decision to this court, the drainage district moved to dismiss the appeal. This court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the statute making the three-judge ruling nonappealable was invalid as violating the "right of appeal" implicit in the constitutional grant of appellate jurisdiction over cases concerning the validity of assessments. This court declared that "litigants have a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal in all litigated matters within the express jurisdiction of appellate courts." ( Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. 532, 536 .) We further stated that "if the proceeding before us is included in that class of cases ... over which appellate jurisdiction has been given by the constitution the appellants have a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal of which they cannot be deprived." ( Id. at p. 537.)

As in the 1849 and 1878-1879 constitutional debates concerning the "amount in controversy" limitations, and as in People v. Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. 644 and People v. Perry, supra, 79 Cal. 105 , the issue before this court in Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. 532 , was not whether the Legislature could specify a procedure other than direct appeal by which this court or the Courts of Appeal could exercise constitutionally conferred "appellate jurisdiction," but whether the Legislature could eliminate all procedures for the exercise of that jurisdiction. We are persuaded that this court's use of the term "right of appeal" in that context carried the same meaning as in the 1849 and 1878-1879 constitutional debates and in this court's earlier decisions in People v. Perry, supra, 79 Cal. 105, 107 , and in Haight, supra, 8 Cal. 297, 300 , — that is, a right to some effective procedural vehicle by which to invoke the constitutionally conferred appellate jurisdiction. We do not conclude, as plaintiffs would have us do, that the term was intended to refer only to direct appeals.

1928 Amendment

In 1928, the "appellate jurisdiction" provisions of the 1879 Constitution were again amended. As amended, the Constitution gave the Courts of Appeal appellate jurisdiction "on appeal from the superior courts (except in *105 cases in which appellate jurisdiction is given to the supreme court) in all cases at law in which the superior courts are given original jurisdiction; also, in all cases of forcible or unlawful entry or detainer (except such as arise in municipal, or in justices' or other inferior courts); in proceedings in insolvency; in actions to prevent or abate a nuisance; in proceedings of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, usurpation of office, removal from office, contesting elections, eminent domain, and in such other special proceedings as may be provided by law; also, on questions of law alone, in all criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or information, except where judgment of death has been rendered." (Cal. Const. of 1879, art. VI, § 4b, as adopted Nov. 6, 1928.) [17]

Any lingering uncertainty about whether the "appellate jurisdiction" provisions of the 1849 and 1879 Constitutions conferred on civil litigants a right to a direct appeal was dispelled by this court's opinion in Trede v. Superior Court (1943) 21 Cal.2d 630 [ 134 P.2d 745 ]. There, a building and loan association brought a superior court action for the return of association assets that the Building and Loan Commissioner had seized. After losing the case in superior court, the association appealed. While the appeal was pending, the commissioner applied to the superior court for authorization to liquidate the association's assets. One of the association's investors objected to the application, but the superior court overruled her objections. The investor, later joined by the association, then sought a writ of prohibition from this court, asserting that the association's appeal would be rendered meaningless if the commissioner liquidated the assets before the appeal was decided. They argued that the Building and Loan Association Act (Stats. 1931, ch. 269, pp. 483-554), to the extent it authorized asset liquidation pending appeal, was an "unreasonable exercise of the police power." ( Trede v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.2d 630, 632 .)

This court rejected the argument and denied the writ. Although nothing in this court's opinion indicates that the association had relied on a constitutional right of appeal, this court nonetheless addressed that subject, with these words: "There is no constitutional right to an appeal; the appellate procedure is entirely statutory and subject to complete legislative control." ( Trede v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.2d 630, 634 .) This court cited no authority for the stated propositions, nor did we mention the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the state Constitution or any of the cases construing that provision. But the statement may not be dismissed as dictum. The *106 petitioners had argued that once the commissioner had liquidated the association's assets, their appeal would be rendered meaningless. We did not dispute that liquidation would have this result, but concluded, in effect, that petitioner's right of appeal, because it was entirely statutory in origin, did not prevail over the commissioner's statutory authority to liquidate the assets. If the right of appeal derived from the Constitution, this reasoning could not have sufficed.

Plaintiff's position is further undermined by this court's decision in Modern Barber Col. v. Cal. Emp. Stab. Com. (1948) 31 Cal.2d 720 [ 192 P.2d 916 ] (hereafter Modern Barber ). The case arose under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Stats. 1935, ch. 352, p. 1226 et seq.), which required employers to contribute to an unemployment compensation fund according to the number of persons they employed. The California Employment Stabilization Commission (the agency charged with administering the act) had found that the students, proprietor, and bookkeeper of a barber college were all its employees. To challenge these findings, the college petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate.

The question on appeal in this court was whether the barber college could maintain the mandate action without first paying the contributions. A provision of the act (§ 45.11, subd. (d)) made a suit for refund the exclusive means of challenging the commission's decision, but the college contended that the statute was unconstitutional, arguing that it both denied employers due process of law and interfered with the constitutional grant of original jurisdiction to superior courts in mandate actions. We rejected both grounds, concluding, as to the second, that the statute did not interfere with the constitutional grant of original jurisdiction because the Legislature had general authority to define rights such as the right to make a prepayment challenge of a tax, whether by mandate or otherwise. As this court put it, "Except as the Constitution otherwise provides, the Legislature has complete power to determine the rights of individuals" and also "to regulate and circumscribe the methods and means of enjoying those rights, so long as there is no interference with constitutional guaranties." ( Modern Barber, supra, 31 Cal.2d 720, 726 .)

Further developing this idea, we added:

"The fallacy of petitioner's position is again exposed when we consider the law governing appeals. The Constitution (art. VI, §§ 4, 4b) provides that the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal `shall have appellate jurisdiction on appeal from the Superior Court....' In interpreting this provision, the courts have held that the Legislature has the power to declare *107 by statute what orders are appealable, and, unless a statute does so declare, the order is not appealable. ( Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co., 169 Cal. 46 [ 145 P. 532 ]; see Trede v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.2d 630, 634 [ 134 P.2d 745 ]; cf. Byers v. Smith, 4 Cal.2d 209 [ 47 P.2d 705 ] [express constitutional right of appeal in cases involving removal from public office]; In re Sutter-Butte By-Pass Assessment, 190 Cal. 532 [ 213 P. 974 ] [express constitutional right of appeal in cases involving legality of tax assessments].)" ( Modern Barber, supra, 31 Cal.2d 720, 728 .)

In assessing the significance of this statement, it may be useful to examine the authorities this court cited. In Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co., 169 Cal. 46 [ 145 P. 532 ], this court dismissed an appeal from a contempt judgment on the authority of Tyler v. Connolly (1884) 65 Cal. 28 [ 2 P. 414 ], in which this court had held that no appeal would lie from a contempt judgment because contempt proceedings were not among the categories of cases over which the 1879 Constitution had granted this court appellate jurisdiction ( id. at p. 30). After "[c]onceding that the legislature may confer appellate jurisdiction on this court in cases not provided for in the Constitution," we concluded that the Legislature had not done so for contempt judgments, but on the contrary had provided, in Code of Civil Procedure section 1222, that judgments in contempt proceedings are "final and conclusive." ( Tyler v. Connolly, supra, 65 Cal. at p. 30.) The cases of Trede v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.2d 630 , and Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. 532 , we have already discussed. Byers v. Smith (1935) 4 Cal.2d 209 [ 47 P.2d 705 ] (hereafter Byers ), was a mandate proceeding by an elected city attorney to ensure continued payment of his salary, and to prevent election or appointment of a replacement, pending the outcome of his appeal from a superior court judgment removing him from office on grounds of misconduct. This court granted the requested relief, noting that the 1928 constitutional amendment had conferred appellate jurisdiction on the Courts of Appeal "`in proceedings of ... removal from office'" and that some means of staying the judgment was necessary to ensure that the appeal would provide the officeholder an effective remedy. ( Id. at p. 212.) After noting that under former Political Code section 996 an office became vacant upon the holder's removal, this court observed, with a citation to Sutter-Butte, supra, that "the legislature has not the power, either through direct enactment or indirect device, to destroy or abridge the right of an appeal constitutionally granted." ( Byers, supra, 4 Cal.2d at p. 214 .)

Because Modern Barber's entire discussion of the "right of appeal" was dictum, intended only to illustrate the general principle that the Legislature has authority "to regulate and circumscribe the methods and means of enjoying ... rights, so long as there is no interference with constitutional *108 guaranties" ( Modern Barber, supra, 31 Cal.2d 720, 726 ), it is not authority on the issue we face here; therefore, extensive analysis is not warranted. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that in Modern Barber , this court, although not purporting to overrule our earlier decisions in Byers, supra, 4 Cal.2d 209 , and Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. 532 , did appear to suggest that the "constitutional right of appeal" mentioned in those cases extended only to proceedings specifically mentioned in the constitutional grant of appellate jurisdiction, and not to proceedings encompassed by jurisdictional grants phrased in more general terms.

In addition to Trede v. Superior Court, supra, 21 Cal.2d 630 , a number of cases decided before the November 1966 General Election declared that there was no constitutional right of appeal or (what amounts to the same thing) that the right of appeal is wholly statutory. (See, e.g., Lund v. Superior Court (1964) 61 Cal.2d 698, 709 [ 39 Cal. Rptr. 891 , 394 P.2d 707 ] [stating that "no order or judgment in a civil action is appealable unless it is embraced within the list of appealable orders provided by statute"]; In re Conley (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 755, 759 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 321 ] [stating that "there is no constitutional right to an appeal"]; City of Los Angeles v. Schweitzer (1962) 200 Cal. App.2d 448, 452 [ 19 Cal. Rptr. 429 ] [same]; Efron v. Kalmanovitz (1960) 185 Cal. App.2d 149, 157 [ 8 Cal. Rptr. 107 ] [same]; Kadota Fig Assn. v. Case-Swayne Co. (1946) 73 Cal. App.2d 815, 823 [ 167 P.2d 523 ] [stating that "[t]he right of appeal is statutory"]; Jackson v. Jackson (1945) 71 Cal. App.2d 837, 839 [ 163 P.2d 780 ] [stating that "[t]he right of appeal is purely statutory"]; Leftridge v. City of Sacramento (1943) 59 Cal. App.2d 516, 526 [ 139 P.2d 112 ] [stating that "[t]he right of appeal is statutory"]; Strauch v. Bieloh (1936) 16 Cal. App.2d 278, 280 [ 60 P.2d 582 ] [stating that "[t]he right of appeal is entirely statutory"].)

Reflecting this widespread understanding, a respected guide to California civil procedure in use at the time of the November 1966 General Election, expressed a similar view, in these words: "There is no constitutional right to an appeal or other review of a judicial decision, and the Legislature therefore has power to change the procedure, limit the right, or even abolish the right altogether." (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (1954) Appeal, § 1, p. 2141, original italics.) The same work also noted, however, that "if appellate jurisdiction is conferred by the California Constitution, it cannot be destroyed or abridged by legislative action or inaction...." ( Ibid. )

Having traced the constitutional antecedents of the current "appellate jurisdiction" provision, we return to the question whether, at the time of the November 1966 General Election, there was an "authoritative judicial construction" (see Sarracino v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.3d 1, 8 ) of the *109 term "appellate jurisdiction" as conferring on litigants a right of direct appeal. As we have seen, there are no cases directly in point. Before the 1966 General Election, neither this court nor the Courts of Appeal were ever called upon to determine the constitutional validity of a legislative scheme making review by extraordinary writ the exclusive mode of appellate review of a superior court proceeding within the appellate jurisdiction of this court or the Courts of Appeal. Because the positive authority of an appellate opinion is coextensive only with the facts presented by the case ( Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 711, 734-735 [ 257 Cal. Rptr. 708 , 771 P.2d 406 ]), the absence of any case presenting these facts necessarily means that there was no "binding judicial construction" of the "appellate jurisdiction" language as it applies to this issue.

Furthermore, although some early cases referred to a constitutional "right of appeal," they appear to have used that term to encompass a right to appellate review generally, and later cases either implied that the constitutional right of appeal was limited to superior court proceedings expressly mentioned in the "appellate jurisdiction" provision or denied the existence of any constitutional right of appeal. Given this uncertainty and conflict in the case law, we conclude that in 1966 plaintiffs' proposed construction of the "appellate jurisdiction" language — that is, that it confers on civil litigants a right of direct appeal — did not have the sanction of an authoritative judicial construction. For this reason, we reject plaintiffs' proposed construction.

This conclusion is reinforced by consideration of cases decided after 1966. In those cases, we find no decisions affirming the existence of a "right of appeal" under the state Constitution, nor do we find references to the "appellate jurisdiction" provision as limiting the Legislature's authority to determine which superior court judgments and orders are reviewable by direct appeal and which by extraordinary writ or other mode of review. We do find many pronouncements by California courts, including this one, that there is no constitutional right of appeal and that the right of appeal is wholly statutory in origin. (See, e.g., Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 696, 705 [ 238 Cal. Rptr. 780 , 739 P.2d 140 ]; People v. Chi Ko Wong (1976) 18 Cal.3d 698, 709 [ 135 Cal. Rptr. 392 , 557 P.2d 976 ]; In re Marriage of Griffin (1993) 15 Cal. App.4th 685, 687 [ 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 94 ]; Steen v. Fremont Cemetery Corp. (1992) 9 Cal. App.4th 1221, 1226 [ 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 780 ]; In re Taya C. (1991) 2 Cal. App.4th 1, 6 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d 810 ]; Rao v. Campo (1991) 233 Cal. App.3d 1557, 1564 [ 285 Cal. Rptr. 691 ]; County of Monterey v. Mahabir (1991) 231 Cal. App.3d 1650, 1653 [ 282 Cal. Rptr. 924 ]; In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 228, 232 [ 260 Cal. Rptr. 453 ]; State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Hardin (1989) 211 Cal. App.3d 501, 505 [ 259 Cal. Rptr. 433 ]; Uptain v. *110 Duarte (1988) 206 Cal. App.3d 1258, 1261 [ 254 Cal. Rptr. 150 ]; In re T.M. (1988) 206 Cal. App.3d 314, 316 [ 253 Cal. Rptr. 535 ]; Reisman v. Shahverdian (1984) 153 Cal. App.3d 1074, 1088 [ 201 Cal. Rptr. 194 ]; Redevelopment Agency v. Goodman (1975) 53 Cal. App.3d 424, 432 [ 125 Cal. Rptr. 818 ]; Draus v. Alfred M. Lewis, Inc. (1968) 261 Cal. App.2d 485, 489 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 154 ]; Woodman v. Ackerman (1967) 249 Cal. App.2d 644, 649 [ 57 Cal. Rptr. 687 ].)

Although we recognize that none of these cases is directly on point, they nonetheless represent a significant consensus of judicial thinking on this topic over the past 30 years. We find nothing in any of these decisions to support plaintiffs' contention. We also note that courts in other states with constitutions containing "appellate jurisdiction" provisions similar to article VI, section 11 of our state Constitution, have rejected the contention that this language confers on litigants a right of direct appeal. (See, e.g., Appeal of O'Rourke (1974) 300 Minn. 158 [ 220 N.W.2d 811 ].)

(6) This does not mean, however, that the "appellate jurisdiction" provision imposes no restrictions on the Legislature's authority to allocate appellate review as between direct appeals and extraordinary writ petitions. As we have seen, the plain language of the provision reveals that it is a grant of judicial authority and this form of grant has been interpreted to mean that, although the Legislature may regulate the mode of appellate review, it may do so only to the extent that it does not thereby "`substantially impair the constitutional powers of the courts, or practically defeat their exercise.'" ( In re Jessup, supra, 81 Cal. 408, 470 , italics omitted; see also Haight, supra, 8 Cal. 297, 300 .) If it could be demonstrated in a given case, or class of cases, that, for whatever reason, the Courts of Appeal or this court could not effectively exercise the constitutionally granted power of appellate review by an extraordinary writ proceeding, then such a proceeding could not constitutionally be made the exclusive mode of appellate review.

(1b) No such claim is made here, however, and we see no reason to conclude that extraordinary writ review is not a sufficient or effective appellate remedy in this or other PRA cases. (7) Indeed, an examination of the history of § 6259(c), making petition for extraordinary writ the only mode of appellate review in PRA cases, shows that it was intended not to impair judicial power but to make the appellate remedy more effective for litigants seeking disclosure of public records.

Our opinion in Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325 [ 283 Cal. Rptr. 893 , 813 P.2d 240 ] (hereafter Times-Mirror ), explains the origin, evolution, and purpose of this provision:

*111 "Prior to 1984, review of a trial court order either directing disclosure of a public record or refusing disclosure was by appeal. In 1984, however, the Legislature substituted a writ procedure for the appellate process by amending section 6259 to provide as follows: `In an action filed on or after January 1, 1985, an order of the court, either directing disclosure by a public official or supporting the decision of the public official refusing disclosure, is not a final judgment or order within the meaning of Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure from which an appeal may be taken, but shall be immediately reviewable by petition to the appellate court for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of review as defined in Section 1067 of the Code of Civil Procedure.' (§ 6259, subd. (c); Stats. 1984, ch. 802, § 1, pp. 2804-2805.)....

".... .... .... .... .... .... ....

"[T]he legislative history of the 1984 amendment to section 6259, subdivision (c) reveals that the exclusive purpose of the amendment was to speed appellate review, not to limit its scope. The bill which contained the amendment, Senate Bill No. 2222, 1983-1984 Regular Session, was sponsored by a news organization, the California Newspaper Publishers' Association. It was inspired by a case in which a newspaper had successfully sued in the superior court to obtain government records, but was forced to wait several years while the case was on appeal, by which time the story was no longer newsworthy.

"The perceived evil at which the bill was aimed, according to a Senate Judiciary Committee analysis, was `delays of the appeal process, [by means of which] public officials are frustrating the intent of the laws for disclosure....' `The sponsors of this bill,' the analysis continued, `seek to correct an injustice they perceive due to ... the potential for ... public agencies to delay the disclosure of public documents.' Accordingly, the amendment's goal was `to prohibit public agencies from delaying the disclosure of public records by appealing a trial court decision and using continuances in order to frustrate the intent of the Public Records Act.' (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2222 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.).)" ( Times-Mirror, supra, 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1332-1335 , original italics, fns. omitted.)

After the 1984 amendment, a Court of Appeal held that the scope of review in PRA actions under the writ of review was confined to jurisdictional issues, and thus was much narrower than the scope of review on direct appeal. ( Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal. App.3d 1102, 1109 [ 231 Cal. Rptr. 189 ].) Following this decision, the Legislature amended section 6259(c) to eliminate the reference to the "writ of review," *112 and to provide instead that superior court orders under the PRA "shall be immediately reviewable by petition to the appellate court for issuance of an extraordinary writ." (Stats. 1990, ch. 908, § 2.) As we noted in Times-Mirror, supra, 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1335-1336 , "[t]he amendment also added two new provisions: (1) the petition for extraordinary writ must be filed within ten days[ [18] ] after receipt of notice of the trial court order, and (2) no stay of the trial court order shall be permitted `unless the petitioning party demonstrates it will otherwise sustain irreparable damage and probable success on the merits.'"

As we explained in Times-Mirror , the 1990 amendment reinforces our conclusions about the legislative purpose underlying section 6259(c): "The effect of the 1990 amendment providing for review by `extraordinary writ,' including presumably writ of mandate, is, of course, to make it plain that review of orders subject to the amendment is not confined to acts in excess of jurisdiction. The analysis of the bill prepared for the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary indicates that the recent amendment was a response to Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 186 Cal. App.3d 1102 , and was intended to overrule that decision by `clarifying' that the purpose of writ review is to speed appellate review, not to preclude review on the merits. As the analysis explains, `[T]he courts [(an apparent reference to Freedom Newspapers )] ... have narrowly interpreted [the 1984 amendment] to review questions of jurisdiction and not broader as intended by the original statute. The bill expands the extraordinary writ by clarifying that courts can rule quickly on substantive issues.' (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 2272 (1989-1990 Reg. Sess.), italics added.)" ( Times-Mirror, supra, 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1336 .)

Thus, the history of section 6259(c) reveals that the Legislature's purpose in replacing review by direct appeal with review by extraordinary writ was in no sense to disadvantage litigants seeking review of PRA decisions or to constrict the power of the Courts of Appeal to correct errors in those decisions. Rather, the legislative objective was to expedite the process and thereby to make the appellate remedy more effective.

To achieve this objective, the Legislature eliminated direct appeals in PRA cases. Its reason for doing so becomes apparent when we examine certain rules governing extraordinary writs.

Generally, a judgment that is immediately appealable is not subject to review by mandate or other extraordinary writ. ( In re Marriage of Skelley *113 (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 369 [ 134 Cal. Rptr. 197 , 556 P.2d 297 ]; Neal v. State of California (1960) 55 Cal.2d 11, 15 [ 9 Cal. Rptr. 607 , 357 P.2d 839 ].) Mandate is available to review an appealable judgment only when the remedy by appeal would be inadequate or the issues presented are of great public importance and must be resolved promptly. ( Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 801, 808 [ 114 Cal. Rptr. 577 , 523 P.2d 617 ]; California Trial Lawyers Assn. v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal. App.3d 575, 578-579 [ 231 Cal. Rptr. 725 ]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1086.) A remedy by immediate direct appeal is presumed to be adequate, and a party seeking review by extraordinary writ bears the burden of demonstrating that appeal would not be an adequate remedy under the particular circumstances of that case. ( Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 370 [ 217 P.2d 951 ].)

In light of these rules, the Legislature's reason for eliminating direct appeals is readily apparent. Had the Legislature not abolished direct appeals in PRA cases, parties seeking review by extraordinary writ would have been required in each case to demonstrate the inadequacy of appeal. Litigation of this issue would have complicated the proceeding and introduced a risk that a Court of Appeal, not fully realizing the importance of speedy relief in many PRA cases, would erroneously deny an extraordinary writ petition on the ground that an adequate remedy existed by appeal. To keep the process simple and streamlined, and to remove a procedural barrier to review on the merits, the Legislature barred direct appeal of PRA decisions.

Plaintiffs may be understood to argue that appellate review by extraordinary writ petition is inherently less effective than a remedy by direct appeal because issuance of the extraordinary writs is discretionary whereas direct appeal guarantees a decision on the merits. The argument betrays a serious misunderstanding of the discretionary character of extraordinary writs.

Although appellate review by extraordinary writ petition is said to be discretionary, a court must exercise its discretion "within reasonable bounds and for a proper reason." ( Scott v. Municipal Court (1974) 40 Cal. App.3d 995, 997 [ 115 Cal. Rptr. 620 ].) The discretionary aspect of writ review comes into play primarily when the petitioner has another remedy by appeal and the issue is whether the alternative remedy is adequate. (See, e.g., Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891, 901, fn. 3 [ 160 Cal. Rptr. 124 , 603 P.2d 41 ] [stating that courts have discretion to deny extraordinary writ petitions "[b]ecause the law does provide other means of judicial review in such cases"].)

When an extraordinary writ proceeding is the only avenue of appellate review, a reviewing court's discretion is quite restricted. Referring to the *114 writ of mandate, this court has said: "`Its issuance is not necessarily a matter of right, but lies rather in the discretion of the court, but where one has a substantial right to protect or enforce, and this may be accomplished by such a writ, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, he [or she] is entitled as a matter of right to the writ, or perhaps more correctly, in other words, it would be an abuse of discretion to refuse it.'" ( Dowell v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal.2d 483, 486-487 [ 304 P.2d 1009 ], quoting Potomac Oil Co. v. Dye (1909) 10 Cal. App. 534, 537 [ 102 P. 677 ]; accord, May v. Board of Directors (1949) 34 Cal.2d 125, 133-134 [ 208 P.2d 661 ].) Accordingly, when writ review is the exclusive means of appellate review of a final order or judgment, an appellate court may not deny an apparently meritorious writ petition, timely presented in a formally and procedurally sufficient manner, merely because, for example, the petition presents no important issue of law or because the court considers the case less worthy of its attention than other matters. [19]

The Concurring Opinion

Invoking the principle of judicial self-restraint, Justices George and Arabian would decide only that section 6259(c) does not violate the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the state Constitution, without undertaking to construe that provision in any meaningful way. They decline to decide not only whether the provision gives litigants a constitutional right of appeal in other superior court proceedings, but also whether it would permit the Legislature to abrogate all forms of appellate review of superior court decisions in PRA actions.

Although courts should not fashion unnecessarily broad constitutional rules, courts must construe constitutional provisions when necessary to resolve issues properly presented. Recognizing that this court's role in the *115 judicial system is to settle "important questions of law" (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 29(a)), and that, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, it is "emphatically ... the province and duty of the judicial department ... to say what the law is" ( Marbury v. Madison, supra, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 ( 2 L.Ed. 60, 73 ]), we have used established methods of constitutional interpretation to determine whether, as plaintiffs contend, the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of our state Constitution confers on litigants a right of direct appeal from final judgments and orders in superior court actions, and we have concluded that it does not. As we have seen, this court has not hesitated in the past to affirm or deny the existence of a constitutional "right of appeal." Indeed, we have spoken to this issue so many times, making so many apparently conflicting statements without careful analysis, that the time for a definitive construction should no longer be postponed. To suddenly turn coy on this issue, after decades of careless loquacity, is to shirk our constitutional obligation, to create or at least perpetuate uncertainty, and to invite needless litigation.

III

The Legislature, in section 6259(c), has provided that the mode of appellate review for superior court decisions in PRA cases shall be an extraordinary writ proceeding rather than direct appeal. To determine whether, as plaintiffs contend, the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the state Constitution forbids this legislative choice, we have examined the text and history of this constitutional provision, including judicial decisions construing and applying its constitutional predecessors. We conclude that the "appellate jurisdiction" provision does not require the Legislature to provide for direct appeals in all cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior courts; that it permits some variation in and experimentation with the traditional procedures for appellate review of civil actions brought in the superior courts, provided always that the constitutional powers of the courts are not thereby impaired; and that in particular it does not afford litigants in PRA cases a constitutionally guaranteed right to a direct appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.

Baxter, J., and Werdegar, J., concurred.

GEORGE, J., Concurring.

(1c) I agree with the lead opinion's conclusion that the Legislature did not violate the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the California Constitution (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11) by providing in Government Code section 6259, subdivision (c), that trial court rulings on claims brought under the California Public Records Act are subject to review in the Court of Appeal only by petition for extraordinary writ, and *116 not by "direct appeal." [1] In my view, however, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to go beyond the Public Records Act provision here at issue to announce a broad constitutional rule that may be understood to validate virtually all, or at least most, legislative measures that in the future might substitute writ review for direct appeal in contexts not presented by the case now before us. Accordingly, I would limit the holding in this case to the specific Public Records Act provision before the court.

I

Well-settled principles of judicial restraint establish that when a case must be decided upon constitutional grounds, a court should strive to resolve the matter as narrowly as possible, and should avoid expansive constitutional pronouncements that inevitably prejudge future controversies and may have unforeseen and questionable consequences in other contexts. (See generally, Steamship Co. v. Emigration Commissioners (1885) 113 U.S. 33, 39 [ 28 L.Ed. 899, 901 , 5 S.Ct. 352 ] [the high court "has rigidly adhered" to the rule that it is "never to formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is ... applied"]; Ashwander v. Valley Authority (1936) 297 U.S. 288, 347 [ 80 L.Ed. 688, 711 , 56 S.Ct. 466 ] (conc. opn. of Brandeis, J.) [listing this rule as one of the cardinal principles of judicial restraint].)

In my view, this familiar precept of judicial restraint has particular force in the present case, because the potential ramifications of a broad constitutional holding are so far reaching. Taken to its logical conclusion, the lead opinion's reasoning very well could be understood to permit the Legislature totally to transform the California Court of Appeal from an appellate tribunal whose duties generally involve the resolution of cases in which litigants have a direct appeal "as a matter of right" — and in which most decisions must be rendered "in writing with reasons stated" (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14) — into an appellate court whose jurisdiction consists entirely of writ review and as to which the court has no obligation to resolve any of the cases before it by a written decision setting forth the reasons for its ruling. Such a general transformation of the Court of Appeal into an appellate court of purely writ review clearly would work a very substantial change in the nature of the appellate process that has existed in California from the inception of its statehood. I believe there is ample reason for this court to be extremely cautious before embracing an interpretation of the pertinent state constitutional provision that would permit such a major revision of the state's appellate process to be made by the Legislature acting alone, rather than through the procedure prescribed for amending the state Constitution.

*117 In this case, of course, we are not faced with the broad question whether the Legislature has the constitutional authority to substitute review by extraordinary writ for direct appeal in all cases. The Legislature has not purported to enact a wide-ranging legislative measure that would restructure, in a fundamental manner, the operation of the state's appellate process. Indeed, the Legislature has shown no interest in substituting writ review for direct appeal with regard to a majority, or even a significant proportion, of the caseload of the Courts of Appeal. Instead, in enacting the statutory provision here at issue, the Legislature simply has concluded that, because of the special importance of obtaining a very prompt appellate resolution in the relatively small and discrete class of cases brought under the Public Records Act, appellate review of a superior court ruling in such cases should proceed by extraordinary writ rather than by direct appeal. I believe we can, and should, determine the constitutionality of only this limited statutory provision, and explicitly should reserve judgment as to whether a similar legislative substitution of review by extraordinary writ for review by direct appeal would be permissible if enacted either "across the board" or in other contexts. Thus, unlike the lead opinion, which approaches the case by first setting forth a broad constitutional rule and then indicating that — although there possibly may be some exceptions to the rule — the Public Records Act provision is not such an exception (see, lead opn., ante, p. 110), I believe we should approach the matter from a more cautious perspective and explicitly limit our holding in this case to a narrow determination that the statute before us is constitutional.

II

As we explained in Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1332-1335 [ 283 Cal. Rptr. 893 , 813 P.2d 240 ], the statutory provision at issue in the present case — Government Code section 6259, subdivision (c) (hereafter section 6259(c)) — was enacted in 1984 in response to problems encountered in direct appeals in cases arising under the Public Records Act. The principal proponent of the legislation, the California Newspaper Publishers' Association — which represented numerous news organizations that frequently relied upon the Public Records Act to obtain information concerning the actions of governmental entities and public officials — maintained that, in practice, the ordinary process of direct appeal was operating in cases under the Public Records Act to frustrate the significant public purposes underlying the act. In this regard, the association pointed out that, even when a newspaper or other plaintiff that had brought an action under the Public Records Act prevailed at the trial court level and obtained a judgment compelling disclosure of particular records, a defendant public agency or public official routinely could delay disclosure of the records in question for *118 a considerable period of time (often years) simply by filing an appeal of the adverse judgment, thereby preventing disclosure of public information at a time when the material still was newsworthy or of particular importance to the plaintiff.

Persuaded that the timeliness of disclosure often is of crucial importance in actions brought under the Public Records Act, the Legislature responded by enacting section 6259(c). As amended in 1990, that statute provides that a trial court order made under the Public Records Act — either directing disclosure of a public record or supporting the decision of a public official refusing disclosure — is not subject to ordinary direct appeal but instead is "immediately reviewable" by petition for an extraordinary writ to the Court of Appeal. [2]

As this legislative background demonstrates, it is clear that section 6259(c) was enacted not to diminish the rights of individuals, such as plaintiffs in this case, who seek disclosure of governmental information under the Public Records Act, but, on the contrary, for the general purpose of enhancing such persons' rights by ensuring that appellate review of trial court decisions under the act is conducted in a manner that promotes, rather than frustrates, the purpose of the act.

III

At this juncture, plaintiffs in the case at bar are challenging the validity of section 6259(c). Nonetheless, because — as we just have seen — the challenged statute was enacted primarily to protect the interests of litigants, like plaintiffs, who seek disclosure of governmental information under the Public Records Act, it may be instructive to review briefly the facts of this case in order to accord proper consideration to the potential benefits that section 6259(c) afforded these plaintiffs at earlier stages of this proceeding.

The request for disclosure of public information that gave rise to the underlying litigation in the present case was made in the midst of an election campaign for a seat on the Richmond City Council. Less than two months before the election, plaintiffs — a candidate running for the city council, and her supporters — filed this action under the Public Records Act, seeking to *119 obtain from city officials information concerning expenditures of public funds that had been made by the city in the previous fiscal year. Had plaintiffs prevailed in the trial court in their Public Records Act action, section 6259(c) would have prevented defendant city and its officials from delaying disclosure of the records sought by plaintiffs beyond the date of the election by simply filing an appeal from the trial court's ruling, and would have permitted defendant to obtain a stay of the trial court order by filing a petition for an extraordinary writ only if defendants were able to make the substantial showing required by the statute. (See, ante, fn. 2.) Thus, had plaintiffs prevailed in their Public Records Act action in the trial court, section 6259(c) would have been of considerable assistance in helping to ensure that plaintiffs' victory was not illusory.

Of course, as things turned out, plaintiffs did not prevail in the trial court. Nevertheless, by virtue of the provisions of section 6259(c), the adverse trial court ruling was "immediately reviewable" in the Court of Appeal by petition for extraordinary writ. Acting pursuant to this provision, plaintiffs timely sought review of the trial court order by extraordinary writ. The Court of Appeal, after requesting briefing of the Public Records Act issue by defendant, rendered its decision on the writ petition just a few weeks later, summarily denying the requested writ. Had plaintiffs been able to persuade the Court of Appeal of the merit of their Public Records Act claim, however, the extraordinary writ remedy provided by section 6259(c) very likely would have permitted plaintiffs to obtain the records they sought much more quickly than would have been possible had plaintiffs been relegated to an ordinary direct appeal. [3]

While their petition for extraordinary writ was pending in the Court of Appeal, plaintiffs filed the present appeal, raising and briefing precisely the same legal issue under the Public Records Act that they had raised and fully briefed in their writ petition. Relying upon section 6259(c), and rejecting plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the provision, the Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed the appeal. We granted review.

IV

Plaintiffs acknowledge that the Legislature, in enacting section 6259(c), intended that a trial court decision under the Public Records Act would be subject to review in the Court of Appeal only by extraordinary writ (which *120 they already have pursued, albeit unsuccessfully) and not by direct appeal. Plaintiffs maintain, however, that the Legislature lacked the constitutional authority to prescribe this form of appellate review of a superior court ruling under the Public Records Act. Plaintiffs assert that the California Constitution grants them the right to have the Court of Appeal review a superior court decision under the Public Records Act by direct appeal, and that affording them appellate review of such a decision only by extraordinary writ is constitutionally impermissible.

Plaintiffs rest their constitutional argument upon article VI, section 11, of the California Constitution, which provides that, with the exception of cases in which a judgment of death has been imposed, "courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction when superior courts have original jurisdiction...." [4] Plaintiffs contend that this constitutional provision mandates that whenever a superior court has original jurisdiction in a cause, the parties have a constitutional right to a direct appeal in the Court of Appeal. Because the Legislature has provided that the superior court has original jurisdiction in an action under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6258, 6259, subd. (a)), plaintiffs maintain that, under article VI, section 11, they have a constitutionally based right to file and pursue a direct appeal in the Court of Appeal in any such action, and that the Legislature lacks the authority to substitute review by extraordinary writ for direct appeal in such an action.

I disagree with plaintiffs' position. Assuming, without deciding, that the current "appellate jurisdiction" provision of article VI, section 11, properly should be interpreted to preclude the Legislature from abrogating any and all appellate review of a superior court decision in an action under the Public Records Act (cf. In re Sutter-Butte By-Pass Assessment (1923) 190 Cal. 532, 537 [ 213 P. 974 ]), in my view plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that article VI, section 11, should be interpreted to bar the Legislature from adopting the much more modest provision of the Public Records Act here at issue, which does not bar all appellate review of a trial court ruling under the act but provides for review of such decisions in the Courts of Appeal by extraordinary writ rather than by direct appeal.

In analyzing plaintiffs' constitutional claim, it is important to recognize that the constitutional challenge that plaintiffs have mounted in this case *121 necessarily rests upon the very broad proposition that the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of article VI, section 11, requires that all cases falling within the constitutionally established appellate jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeal be subject to review by direct appeal, and does not permit the Legislature to provide for exclusive review by extraordinary writ in any case falling within such appellate jurisdiction. In pressing their claim, plaintiffs have not suggested that there is anything in the nature or subject matter of an action under the Public Records Act that renders a trial court ruling under that act susceptible to adequate appellate review only by direct appeal, and not by extraordinary writ. (Cf. In re Shafter-Wasco Irr. Dist. (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 484, 487-488 [ 130 P.2d 755 ] [noting the constitutional question that would be raised by a statutory provision imposing an unreasonably short time limit for the determination of an appeal].) Thus, for example, plaintiffs do not contend that superior court actions under the Public Records Act generally are so protracted, or so factually or legally complex, that the Legislature could not reasonably have concluded that the Courts of Appeal properly could review trial court orders in such cases through the traditional extraordinary writ procedure, rather than the more elaborate and time-consuming process of a direct appeal. [5] Nor do plaintiffs contend there is anything in the nature of the particular rights or interests at stake in a Public Records Act proceeding that suggests that limiting appellate review of a trial court ruling in such a case to review by extraordinary writ, rather than direct appeal, inadequately would protect the interests at issue. (Indeed, as we have seen, the Legislature enacted section 6259(c) precisely because it concluded that the substitution of writ review in place of direct appeal would, in practice, better protect the interests and objectives underlying the Public Records Act.) Instead, plaintiffs simply assert that whenever a cause of action falls within the original jurisdiction of the superior court, the "appellate jurisdiction" provision of article VI, section 11, compels the Court of Appeal to review the final determination of that cause by direct appeal, even when the Legislature has concluded that the rights sought to be protected by the superior court action would be better preserved by providing for exclusive review by extraordinary writ in the Court of Appeal.

*122 In my view, neither the language or history of article VI, section 11, nor the past decisions interpreting and applying this provision or its constitutional predecessors, support plaintiffs' broad constitutional argument. As the lead opinion thoroughly and persuasively explains, the term "appellate jurisdiction" that appears in article VI, section 11, long has been understood to encompass an appellate court's review of a lower court decision either by direct appeal or by extraordinary writ. (See, e.g., People v. Turner (1850) 1 Cal. 143, 145-149 ; see generally, 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Courts, § 254, pp. 277-278.) Furthermore, the lead opinion also demonstrates that the debates at the Constitutional Conventions of 1849 and 1879 — though they include numerous references to a general "right of appeal" — contain no suggestion that the convention delegates ever considered the relatively esoteric point presented by the case now before us, namely whether, and under what circumstances, appellate review of a lower court ruling may or may not be conducted by extraordinary writ, as contrasted with direct appeal. Finally, plaintiffs have not identified any previous decision that, in applying either article VI, section 11, or its constitutional predecessors, purports to hold (or even to intimate) that in all cases falling within the appellate jurisdiction of an appellate court, appellate review invariably must be by way of direct appeal rather than extraordinary writ.

As an historical matter, there always have existed categories of cases in which the final decision of a superior court has been subject to review not by direct appeal, but only by means of some form of extraordinary writ issuable by a higher court. (See, e.g., Tyler v. Connolly (1884) 65 Cal. 28, 32-33 [ 2 P. 414 ] (cone. opn. of Morrison, C.J.) [contempt order is not subject to review by appeal, but may be reviewed by petition for writ of certiorari or habeas corpus in a higher court]; In re Crow (1971) 4 Cal.3d 613, 621, fn. 8 [ 94 Cal. Rptr. 254 , 483 P.2d 1206 ] [lower court order denying habeas corpus relief is not subject to appeal, but may be reviewed by a new petition for habeas corpus filed in a higher court].) Moreover, throughout the years, the Legislature has found, in a variety of settings, that the need for a speedy, final determination of certain discrete issues arising in the course of trial litigation justifies the adoption of statutory provisions permitting a trial court's resolution of such issues to be challenged in an appellate court only through the prompt filing of a petition for extraordinary writ (and not in a subsequent direct appeal of the final judgment rendered in the case). The decisions of the California courts regularly have upheld and applied such legislative measures. (See, e.g., McCorkle v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 70 Cal.2d 252, 257 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 389 , 449 P.2d 453 ] [under former Code Civ. Proc. § 416.3 (now Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10, subd. (c)), a defendant in a civil case may challenge only by extraordinary writ a trial court order refusing to quash service, and may not raise the issue on direct appeal from *123 a judgment entered after trial on the merits]; People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th 322, 334-335 [ 24 Cal. Rptr.2d 710 , 862 P.2d 710 ] [under Code Civ. Proc. § 170.3, a superior court order denying a statutory peremptory challenge to a trial judge is subject to review only by extraordinary writ and may not be reviewed on direct appeal of the final judgment]; see also People v. Chi Ko Wong (1976) 18 Cal.3d 698, 709-714 [ 135 Cal. Rptr. 392 , 557 P.2d 976 ] [juvenile court order, finding defendant fit to be tried as an adult in superior court, is subject to challenge only by peremptory writ and may not be reviewed on direct appeal of the final superior court judgment].)

In my view, these diverse authorities demonstrate that the state Constitution generally has not been interpreted to require that appellate review of a superior court decision invariably proceed by direct appeal, but instead has been viewed as permitting a considerable degree of legislative innovation in devising appellate procedures that are compatible with the particular issue or ruling subject to review and that, at the same time, serve to promote a fair and efficient judicial system. (See generally, Haight v. Gay (1857) 8 Cal. 297, 300 ["The Legislature ... can pass no act impairing the exercise of [a court's constitutionally conferred] appellate power. [¶] But while the Legislature cannot substantially impair the right of appeal, it is certainly competent to regulate the mere mode in which this right must be asserted."].) Under the interpretation urged by plaintiffs, and apparently embraced by the dissenting opinion, however, the Legislature seemingly would lack the authority to substitute writ review for direct appeal in any case falling within the historically established "appellate jurisdiction" of the Court of Appeal. Thus, for example, if the Legislature were to find in the future that the appellate process was becoming unduly burdened by direct criminal appeals in which the only issue raised (and thus the issue determinative of the cause) concerned a minor discrepancy (of a few days or less) as to the credit to which the defendant was entitled in the computation of his or her sentence, the Legislature apparently would be foreclosed from providing for appellate review in such cases by extraordinary writ, rather than by direct appeal.

Taking into consideration the language and history of article VI, section 11, and the relevant judicial authorities noted above, I conclude that the Legislature — having determined that appellate review by extraordinary writ, rather than by direct appeal, would better protect the rights afforded by the Public Records Act — did not violate article VI, section 11, in enacting the challenged provisions of section 6259(c).

As stated at the outset of this concurring opinion, however, in reaching this conclusion I do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to determine, at this juncture, whether the provisions of article VI, section 11, should be *124 interpreted to permit the Legislature to substitute writ review for direct appeal in all cases or in specific contexts not presented here. A statute that purported to substitute writ review for direct appeal in all cases falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeal clearly would present constitutional considerations quite different from those raised under the limited Public Records Act provision here at issue. Similarly, a statute that purported to substitute writ review for direct appeal in, for example, all cases resulting in a felony conviction, or in all contract or tort actions, also would present, from the perspective of both the Court of Appeal and the parties, constitutional considerations of a considerably different magnitude from those evoked by the statute now before us. In my view, in resolving this case there is no reason to set forth a broad constitutional rule that could be understood to validate those types of measures. It will be time enough to address the constitutional questions raised by such legislation if and when the Legislature chooses to enact measures of this scope.

V

Because I conclude that section 6259(c) is constitutional, I concur in the lead opinion's affirmance of the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appeal.

Arabian, J., concurred.

LUCAS, C.J.

I dissent. The litigants in this case have a right of appeal under California Constitution, article VI, section 11, as similar litigants in "public records" cases have had for over 100 years.

We granted review to decide whether the Legislature may, under the Public Records Act, Government Code section 6250 et seq. [1] (PRA or Act), section 6259, subdivision (c) (section 6259(c)), bar review on appeal of superior court orders granting or denying disclosure of records, and restrict review to that available by discretionary writ. The lead and concurring opinions erroneously conclude that the Legislature may do so.

To resolve the question posed, we must construe California Constitution, article VI, section 11 (article VI, section 11), which vests the Courts of Appeal and this court with "appellate jurisdiction." The lead opinion approaches this task in inconsistent fashion.

At times, it views article VI, section 11 as merely defining the powers of the courts, and not as establishing any separate substantive right of litigants. In this respect, the lead opinion suggests the Legislature has authority to *125 foreclose a right to review on the merits and a written opinion — or indeed, any review — in any litigated matter, criminal or civil.

For the most part, however, the lead opinion concedes that the constitutional grant of appellate jurisdiction was intended to confer on litigants "a right to some effective procedural vehicle by which to invoke the constitutionally conferred appellate jurisdiction" (lead opn., ante, at p. 104) — e.g., a right to petition the court to exercise its discretion to review the underlying dispute. But, the lead opinion concludes, article VI, section 11 affords litigants no right to "direct appeal" — i.e., a right to review on the merits [2] and a written opinion "with reasons stated" (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14). Instead, the lead opinion suggests, the right that article VI, section 11 confers on litigants is very limited: It extends only the right to ask a court to exercise its discretion to hear the dispute; it does not include a right to obtain review on the merits, or a right to a written opinion.

Ultimately, the lead opinion concedes that article VI, section 11 precludes the Legislature from substantially impairing the constitutional powers of the Courts of Appeal or this court. (Lead opn., ante, at p. 110.) That, however, is not the claim in this case. Plaintiffs assert section 6259(c) unconstitutionally impairs their right to review on the merits and a written opinion.

The lead opinion conspicuously, and inexplicably, fails to address the latter aspect of plaintiffs' constitutional claim, i.e., whether they have a right to a written opinion. It impliedly rejects the former aspect of plaintiffs' claim (their right to review on the merits) by asserting that, independently from the Constitution, plaintiffs in this case have a right, under general principles of writ jurisprudence, to merit review whenever, as here, the Legislature establishes discretionary writ review as the sole means of review. (Lead opn., ante, at pp. 113-114.)

This belated and grudging acknowledgment that PRA litigants are entitled to half of what the Constitution grants them of right is both revealing and unpersuasive. The lead opinion cites no authority for its conclusion that PRA litigants are entitled to merit review by discretionary writ — and indeed, no litigant in this matter (nor any party in prior cases presenting the identical issue to this court) has so argued — because the legislative history of section 6259(c) forecloses the lead opinion's theory. That history shows the Legislature did not intend to guarantee review on the merits, but instead contemplated that the Court of Appeals would retain discretion to deny such writs without adjudicating the merits of a claim. In light of this history, if we are to *126 conclude that merit review is guaranteed under section 6259(c), we may do so only on the basis that the section must be read to guarantee merit review in order to preserve the statute's constitutionality. The lead opinion, however, completely refuses to acknowledge the constitutional basis for its conclusion, because to do so would fatally undermine its premise that article VI, section 11, confers on litigants neither a substantive right of merit review, nor a right to a written opinion.

We need not engage in such machinations in order to acknowledge a right to merit review, and we should not deny plaintiffs their constitutional right to a written opinion explaining the court's reasons for its resolution of the merits.

The history of article VI, section 11, as revealed by the intent of its drafters in 1966 and that of the drafters of its antecedent provisions in 1849 and 1879, establishes that the grant of appellate jurisdiction was intended to accomplish two things: First, section 11 defines the power of the court to exercise "appellate jurisdiction." Second, as the lead opinion concedes in parts of its analysis, the antecedents of section 11 reflected an intent, evident from the drafters' repeated reference to a "right of appeal" during the debates at the 1849 and 1879 Constitutional Conventions, that litigants have a constitutional "right of appeal" in matters within the courts' "appellate jurisdiction."

The early debates also clarify the intended scope of the "right of appeal." Despite the lead opinion's assertion otherwise, there is no evidence that the drafters in 1849 and 1879 contemplated that a litigant's "right of appeal" could be satisfied by affording a mere opportunity to seek discretionary writ review. Indeed, the evidence firmly refutes this position: Passages of the debates relied on by the lead opinion, as well as whole portions it neglects to emphasize, demonstrate that the drafters assumed that the "right of appeal" entailed a right to review on the merits, and that a court would not have discretion to dispose of a litigant's "right of appeal" either by declining to consider the merits, or by summarily denying the requested relief without a written opinion. These fundamental assumptions were at the heart of the delegates' debates and ultimately informed their choice of constitutional language.

Moreover, the case law construing article VI, section 11 and its antecedents provides no support for the lead opinion's view, and in fact, disproves it. The lead opinion concedes, as it must, that starting with our earliest decisions, we have repeatedly construed our "appellate jurisdiction" provision as guaranteeing a "right of appeal." Nevertheless, it insists that in so *127 stating, we actually meant no more than that litigants have "a right to appellate review generally" (lead opn., ante, at p. 109) — a right that the lead opinion appears to believe would be satisfied by affording litigants a mere opportunity to seek discretionary writ review. The case holdings, however, are not susceptible to such revisionism. In each relevant decision, and without a single dissent, we found or confirmed the existence of a constitutional "right of appeal" in matters within this court's appellate jurisdiction. Nowhere in any case is there a hint to support the proposition that the constitutional "right of appeal" may be satisfied merely by affording a litigant an opportunity to petition for discretionary writ review, and that the "right of appeal" does not entail guaranteed review on the merits and a written opinion.

Ultimately, the lead opinion is compelled to rely on several cases broadly asserting in dicta that there is no state constitutional right of appeal. As I shall explain, not only are these cases inapposite, but they contain no analysis, ignore the contrary debates and case law, and with one distinguishable exception, do not even discuss article VI, section 11, or its predecessors.

To its credit, the concurring opinion expressly declines to endorse the lead opinion's broad constitutional analysis, and cautions that the Legislature may not have constitutional authority to foreclose appeal — i.e., a right to review on the merits and a written opinion — in favor of discretionary and potentially summary writ review in matters outside the context of the PRA. Significantly, the concurring opinion does not join in the lead opinion's analysis of the 1849 and 1879 constitutional debates and the case law interpreting the resulting provisions. Indeed, it carefully avoids suggesting that when the delegates and justices of this court repeatedly used the phrase "right of appeal," they contemplated a right that would be satisfied by the mere opportunity to seek discretionary and potentially summary writ review.

Nevertheless, the concurring opinion concludes the elimination of "appeal" under the PRA is justified in this case because the Legislature reasonably decided that "review by extraordinary writ, rather than by direct appeal, would better protect the rights afforded by the Public Records Act...." (Conc. opn. of George, J., ante, at p. 123.) I cannot agree with this aspect of the concurring opinion, which is unsupported by analysis or precedent.

The concurring opinion relies heavily on the few other statutory schemes in which the Legislature has eliminated appeal in favor of review by discretionary writ. There have always been exceptions to the general right of appeal conferred by article VI, section 11. For example, our state system has *128 never afforded a constitutional right of appeal from contempt judgments, habeas corpus proceedings, or from inferior courts. Similarly, there has never been a constitutional right of appeal from interim rulings, or determinations of discrete preliminary issues unrelated to the substantive merits of an underlying cause of action. But the "public records cases" decided in this state over the past 100 years have always been treated as cases as to which there is a constitutional right of appeal.

Accordingly, the fact that our decisions recognize the Legislature's long-established authority to preclude appeal in favor of review by discretionary writ in contempt and habeas corpus matters provides the concurring opinion no support, in light of the equally established history affording appeal in "public records cases" before and after adoption of the PRA. Likewise, the fact that there is no constitutional right to appeal rulings on discrete, preliminary issues unrelated to the substantive merits of the underlying cause of action affords the concurring opinion no support because the present case does not involve review of a ruling on a discrete, preliminary issue unrelated to the substantive merits of the underlying PRA litigation. It instead concerns the very essence of the cause of action — namely, whether plaintiffs are entitled to the disclosure they seek.

Given the consistent history of a substantive right of appeal in this state, what are we to make of section 6259(c)? To give maximum effect to the legislative purpose underlying the section, I would read it as barring appeal if (i) a litigant neglects to seek discretionary writ review, or (ii) on discretionary writ review in the Court of Appeal, the litigant is afforded review on the merits and a written opinion with reasons stated. But in my view the statute may not constitutionally be applied to preclude appeal in cases such as this one, in which the litigants first properly sought, but were summarily denied, writ review. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and hold that although section 6259(c) is not unconstitutional on its face when construed as above, it may not constitutionally be applied to bar the appeal in this case.

I. THE STATUTE

As we noted in Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1333 , footnote 6 [ 283 Cal. Rptr. 893 , 813 P.2d 240 ], section 6259(c), forecloses appeal and provides exclusively for discretionary writ review in cases of this kind. The section states: "[A]n order of the court, either directing disclosure by a public official or supporting the decision of the public official refusing disclosure, is not a final judgment or order within the meaning of Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure from which an appeal may be taken, but shall be immediately reviewable by petition to the appellate court for the issuance of an extraordinary writ." (§ 6259(c).)

*129 II. THE RIGHT OF APPEAL UNDER CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI, SECTIONS 10 AND 11

A. The sections

Article VI, section 10, of the state Constitution grants this court and the Courts of Appeal original jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandate, prohibition, and certiorari, and grants the superior courts original jurisdiction "in all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts." Article VI, section 11 provides in relevant part: "The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction when [a] judgment of death has been pronounced. With that exception courts of appeal have appellate jurisdiction when superior courts have original jurisdiction and in other causes prescribed by statute." (Italics added.) Article VI, section 12 grants the Supreme Court original and appellate jurisdiction over all "causes" pending in or transferred from the Courts of Appeal.

B. Overview

Plaintiffs contend the grant in article VI, section 11 of "appellate jurisdiction" to the Courts of Appeal and this court also grants to litigants a constitutional right of appeal — i.e., a right to review on the merits and a written opinion. They claim a right to such review of the superior court judgment at issue here, and assert section 6259(c) is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to bar their appeal.

The City of Richmond, and the lead opinion, correctly observe that the bare text of article VI, section 11 explicitly conveys no such right. As the lead opinion concedes, however, neither does the provision foreclose plaintiffs' contention that the Constitution implicitly grants litigants a right of appeal. In such circumstances, as the lead opinion acknowledges, it is proper — indeed, necessary — to consider the intention of the constitutional drafters, in order to determine the extent and scope of the provision. I survey below that constitutional history, and respond to the lead opinion's misconstruction of that history.

C. The 1849 Constitution

1. Appellate jurisdiction

The 1849 Constitution (art. VI, § 4) granted the Supreme Court "appellate jurisdiction" in specified classes of litigation: "[A]ll cases when the matter in dispute exceeds two hundred dollars, when the legality of any tax, toll, or impost or municipal fine is in question, and in all criminal cases amounting to a felony [on] questions of law alone." In addition, the court was granted *130 authority to issue writs "necessary to the exercise of [its] appellate jurisdiction." Finally, the court was granted very limited original jurisdiction, confined to issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.

2. The "right of appeal" at the 1849 Constitutional Convention

The debates of the 1849 Constitutional Convention are set out in Browne, Report of the Debates in the Convention of California on the Formation of the State Constitution (1850) (Browne). As the lead opinion observes, to the extent the debates shed light on the drafters' intent, they assist our interpretation and understanding of the language employed by the drafters. Indeed, we relied on the 1849 debates in our earliest decisions construing former article VI, section 4. ( People v. Applegate (1855) 5 Cal. 295 .)

As the lead opinion acknowledges, the 1849 delegates debated limiting the Supreme Court's "appellate jurisdiction" to cases involving at least $200. In the course of that debate, the drafters referred repeatedly to the effect of such a provision on a litigant's "right of appeal." [3] The debates reveal the delegates' intent that the provision defining the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction would accomplish two things: First, define the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction; and second, affirm the existence of a litigant's "right of appeal."

What did the delegates mean when they repeatedly referred to a "right of appeal"? The lead opinion asserts the drafters intended only to guarantee a right to seek review, and did not intend to guarantee any specific form of review or a right to obtain review, e.g., by appeal, discretionary writ, or otherwise. Accordingly, the lead opinion says, when the delegates argued about a litigant's "right of appeal," they did not intend to convey the idea that a litigant would have a right of review on the merits. In fact, the lead opinion assumes that the drafters intended that the "right of appeal" would be satisfied if a litigant were given the opportunity to petition for discretionary review — even if the court summarily denied the petition without considering the merits.

The record of the debates, however, reveals that when the drafters used the phrase "right of appeal," they intended to convey the essential attribute of what we know the term means today — the right to obtain review on the merits.

*131 Indeed, even the lead opinion's selective quotation from the debates disproves its point. It acknowledges the meaning of the phrase "right of appeal" was "fairly summarized by the remark of one delegate (Mr. Norton) that if such a case were wrongly decided by a trial court, a litigant `should have the right to go to the highest tribunal to get justice' or the `right to go to a higher tribunal and have that decision reversed.'" (Lead opn., ante, at p. 97, quoting Browne, supra, at p. 227.) To like effect, the lead opinion quotes Mr. Lippitt, asserting "that `the poor have just as much right to carry up their disputes, and have them settled by the most competent tribunals, as the richest man in the land.'" (Lead opn., ante, p. 97, fn. 9, italics deleted, quoting Browne, supra, at p. 226.)

This concededly representative language is incompatible with the idea that the right of appeal could be satisfied by the mere opportunity to seek a discretionary writ. It is instead language intended to convey a right to obtain review on the merits. Plainly, Mr. Norton believed that a litigant should be guaranteed a right to go to a higher court to "get justice" or "have that decision reversed" — neither of which could be guaranteed if the litigant had a mere right to seek discretionary review, i.e., if the reviewing court were authorized to deny review without reaching the merits. The same applies to Mr. Lippitt's observations. [4]

Is there any evidence supporting the lead opinion's premise that the delegates assumed that discretionary writ review would satisfy the right of appeal? No. To the contrary. For example, when Mr. Jones spoke in favor of the amendment to impose a jurisdictional amount requirement, he asserted the Supreme Court should not be forced to "preside[] over some petty case which some petty justice of the peace has decided." (Browne, supra, at p. 226.) The premise of his argument, and that of all of the other delegates who supported and opposed his view, was that the Supreme Court would lack authority to weed out the important from the insignificant cases, and would thus be burdened with the task of resolving all such cases on the merits. Obviously, if the delegates believed that the court would have authority to dispose of such matters summarily and in its discretion (by concluding, for example, that the matter posed no important question of law or was less deserving than other cases competing for the court's attention), they would not have perceived the so-called "petty" cases as posing any substantial burden on the court.

*132 The lead opinion advances a number of additional arguments in support of its reading of the 1849 debates. As explained below, the lead opinion's analysis is flawed in each respect.

First, the lead opinion divines support for its view by noting that the delegates "appear to have assumed that if as to a particular matter there was no `appellate jurisdiction' — and hence no `right of appeal' — then the trial court's judgment would be final and unreviewable." (Lead opn., ante, at p. 97.) The lead opinion's premise is incorrect. The delegates allowed for "county courts" to review the judgments of inferior trial courts. (Cal. Const. of 1849, art. VI, § 9.) Contrary to the lead opinion, the delegates did allow for review of matters that fell outside the ambit of the "right of appeal" to the Supreme Court.

Second, the lead opinion seeks support for its interpretation of the 1849 drafters' intent in three early cases decided by this court. ( The People v. Turner (1850) 1 Cal. 143 ; Haight v. Gay (1857) 8 Cal. 297 ; Ex Parte Harker (1875) 49 Cal. 465 .) None of these decisions construed former article VI, section 4's grant of "appellate jurisdiction" to confer only a right to seek discretionary writ review, and none reasonably supports the lead opinion's reconstruction of the drafters' intent.

People v. Turner, supra, 1 Cal. 143 , held only that this "court may exercise [its] appellate jurisdiction ... by means of the writ of mandamus." ( Id. at p. 148.) In other words, Turner, supra, held nothing more than that the court may exercise discretion to grant extraordinary writ relief sought by a party in certain situations. That case says nothing about the present and converse situation, i.e., whether the Legislature may preclude appeal (with its concomitant right to review on the merits, and, as explained below, a written opinion) and limit the parties to discretionary and potentially summary writ review.

The second case relied on by the lead opinion, Haight v. Gay, supra, 8 Cal. 297 , is similarly distinguishable, and indeed, as the lead opinion concedes, it contains language helpful to plaintiffs' position. Consistently with the history of the 1849 debates set out above, this court noted that although the Legislature has power to regulate the " mode in which th[e] right [of appeal] must be asserted," it " cannot substantially impair the right of appeal. " ( Haight v. Gay, supra, 8 Cal. 297, 300 , first italics in original, second added.) A close reading of Haight v. Gay reveals it does not suggest, much less hold, that the Legislature has the power to select freely between *133 discretionary writ review and review by appeal. [5] Haight v. Gay says only that the Legislature may bar review by "writ of error" in favor of exclusive review by direct appeal — a firmly established proposition that says nothing about the present, and opposite question — whether the Legislature may bar review by appeal in favor of exclusive review by discretionary writ. [6]

The third case on which the lead opinion relies, Ex Parte Harker, supra, 49 Cal. 465 , did not concern, or even mention, this court's constitutional jurisdiction under former article VI, section 4. The case instead involved simply the district court's original jurisdiction under former article VI, section 6. [7]

Finally, the lead opinion's historical analysis is flawed by its unduly and conveniently narrow scope. It views article VI, section 4, of the 1849 Constitution as the "earliest antecedent of the `appellate jurisdiction' provision of the present State Constitution...." (Lead opn., ante, at p. 95.) By ignoring the true "earliest antecedent" of our present article VI, section 11, the lead opinion treats the 1849 (and 1879) constitutional antecedents as if they had no relevant out-of-state history that might have informed the California drafters or the case law construing the California provisions. I review the relevant history and background below.

*134 In drafting our appellate jurisdiction provision, the delegates consulted the constitutions of every state then in existence. (Browne, supra, at p. 221.) Under the predominant model of the day (and the federal approach), the Legislature was granted express authority to define the appellate jurisdiction of the state's highest court. [8] Under the minority model, followed by a handful of states, the Constitution itself set out and defined the state high court's jurisdiction. [9] All but one of the few states that followed the minority approach vested appellate jurisdiction in its high court in general terms, for example: "The supreme court ... shall have original jurisdiction in cases relative to the revenue, in cases of mandamus, habeas corpus, and in such cases of impeachment as may be by law directed to be tried before it, and shall have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases." (Ill. Const. (1848) art. V, § 5, italics added; see also Mo. Const. (1820) art. V, § 2; Md. Const. (1776) art. LVI.) The sole exception within the minority group — Louisiana — adopted a more explicit approach, actually listing the classes of cases within the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, for example, "..., and in criminal cases on questions of law alone, whenever the punishment of death or hard labor may be inflicted...." (La. Const. (1845) tit. IV, art. 63.) As explained below, our 1849 delegates rejected the prevailing federal approach and adopted the Louisiana version of the minority model.

The convention appointed a special committee of three — Norton, Dimmick, and Jones (the latter a young attorney from Louisiana) — to reconcile *135 divergent approaches to the judicial article. (Browne, supra, at pp. 224, 478.) Thereafter the special committee proposed an appellate jurisdiction provision that was quite clearly modeled after the corresponding provision of the Louisiana Constitution of 1845 (tit. IV, art. 63). [10] Over the objection of Mr. Jones, however, the special committee declined to embrace one significant aspect of the Louisiana scheme — the minimum "amount in controversy" limitation on the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. (See ante, fn. 10.)

When the special committee's report was submitted to the whole convention, an amendment was immediately proposed to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction to cases "where the matter in dispute exceeds $200." (Browne, supra, at p. 225.) Thereafter, the debate about the effect of that amendment on a litigant's "right of appeal" ensued. Eventually the amendment was adopted. With this change, the resulting provision (art. VI, § 4 of the 1849 Cal. Const.) substantially mirrored the corresponding "appellate jurisdiction" provision of the 1845 Louisiana Constitution.

This background of the 1849 appellate jurisdiction provision is significant because it demonstrates that the California delegates intentionally departed from the prevailing model, which gave the Legislature complete power to regulate the high court's appellate jurisdiction, and hence could not be construed as affording a constitutional right of appeal. They opted instead for Louisiana's novel approach under which the Constitution fixes the high court's appellate jurisdiction. The decision to follow the Louisiana course becomes all the more significant when we review the history and construction of the Louisiana provision. It shows: (i) the 1845 Louisiana constitutional debates reflected the drafters' understanding that their provision created a "right of appeal"; [11] (ii) as early as 1876 the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted the Louisiana provision as granting such a constitutional *136 right; [12] and (iii) since at least that date — and continuing to this day — the Louisiana "appellate jurisdiction" provision has been construed to grant a constitutional "right of appeal" (a right that includes review on the merits) [13] even though the guarantee is found only in that state's judicial article, and not in its "Declaration of Rights." [14]

*137 The 1849 California debates show that the drafters of our Constitution similarly intended the appellate jurisdiction provision to confer a "right of appeal," modeled on the Louisiana provision. Contrary to the lead opinion's premise, the relevant history and debates establish that the delegates understood that "right of appeal" meant a right to obtain review on the merits.

D. The 1862 Amendments and the 1879 Constitution

1. Appellate jurisdiction

In 1862, the California Constitution was modified, expanding the list of cases establishing appellate jurisdiction to include "all cases at law ... in which the demand, exclusive of interest or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to three hundred dollars." Furthermore, the Supreme Court was given appellate jurisdiction in "all cases in equity" as well as "cases at law which involve the title or possession of real estate" and in "all cases arising in the probate courts." [15]

When the Constitution was rewritten by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1879, the list of matters giving rise to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction was both narrowed to exclude cases in equity arising in the justices' courts, and expanded to include "cases of forcible entry and detainer, and in proceedings in insolvency, and in actions to prevent or abate a nuisance...." (Cal. Const. of 1879, art. VI, § 4.) In addition, appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases was clarified to include "all criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or information in a Court of record...." ( Ibid. )

2. The "right of appeal" at the 1879 Constitutional Convention and immediately thereafter

(a) The 1879 debates

The 1879 delegates, like their 1849 predecessors, rejected the prevailing model of the day, under which the Legislature was granted complete authority to control all appeals, [16] and instead retained the scheme under which the Constitution itself defined the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. *138 Moreover, as noted above, by that time, the antecedent of the 1849 Constitution — the Louisiana Constitution of 1845 — had been construed by the Louisiana Supreme Court as granting a "right of appeal." ( State v. Judge of the Superior District Court, supra, 28 La. Ann. 547, 548 .)

The record of the 1879 debates reveals that, like the drafters of the 1849 Constitution, the delegates understood that article VI, former section 4, both defined appellate jurisdiction and also affirmed and defined a litigant's "right of appeal" in all civil and criminal cases within the "jurisdiction list" of former section 4.

Once again, as the lead opinion concedes, the delegates focused initially on defining appellate jurisdiction in terms of the monetary "amount in controversy" in a given case, and the effect of such a scheme on a litigant's "right of appeal." [17] Then, when debating this court's appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters, the delegates focused again on a criminal defendant's "right of appeal." [18] Thereafter, the delegates debated, and ultimately rejected *139 the proposition that there should be a constitutional "right of appeal" from certain judgments of the inferior trial courts to the Supreme Court. [19]

What did the delegates mean by "right of appeal"? Again, the lead opinion asserts they "used the term ... expansively to encompass all forms of appellate review" (lead opn., ante, at p. 100), and reiterates its construction of the 1849 debates: it claims the 1879 delegates repeatedly used the phrase "right of appeal" to guarantee only a right to seek review, and did not intend to guarantee any specific form of review or a right to obtain review. And once more, the lead opinion assumes the drafters intended that the "right of appeal" would be satisfied if a litigant were given the opportunity to petition for discretionary review — even if the court summarily denied the petition without considering the merits.

i. The right to obtain review on the merits

The record of the debates again disproves the lead opinion's premise. First, the lead opinion points to nothing suggesting that the delegates contemplated that a litigant's constitutional "right of appeal" would be satisfied if the litigant were afforded the mere right to seek discretionary writ review. Indeed, as in 1849, the 1879 delegates' premise was the opposite: when they (i) discussed the various proposals to increase and decrease the dollar amount giving rise to "appellate jurisdiction" in the Supreme Court (2 Willis & Stockton, supra, pp. 963-964), (ii) debated changes in the language granting appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases ( id. at p. 964, col. 1), and (iii) debated whether, in certain cases, a justices' court litigant should be allowed a "second appeal" to the Supreme Court ( id. at pp. 976-981), the *140 delegates assumed the Supreme Court would lack discretion to decline to entertain an "appeal" that fell within the court's appellate jurisdiction list, and would have to decide such matters on the merits. Indeed, as noted above in the discussion about the 1849 debates, if the delegates believed the court would have authority to dispose of "appeals" summarily and in its discretion, they would not have perceived the above described proposals as posing any substantial burden on the court. Significantly, the lead opinion cites nothing to suggest the 1879 delegates viewed the "right of appeal" differently from their 1849 predecessors; and as shown above, the 1849 delegates viewed the "right of appeal" as encompassing at least a right to obtain review on the merits.

The lead opinion again perceives support for its position by attributing to the 1879 delegates the "apparent assumption ... that a trial court's judgment would not be reviewable at all if a litigant was denied a `right of appeal'...." (Lead opn., ante, at p. 100.) And again, the lead opinion's premise is incorrect. The delegates provided for review of matters that fell outside the ambit of the "right of appeal" to the Supreme Court. First, they expressly gave the superior courts "appellate jurisdiction" in cases arising from all inferior courts "as ... may be prescribed by law." (Cal. Const. of 1879, art. VI, § 5; see also, e.g., 2 Willis & Stockton, supra, at p. 964, col. 2 ["Superior Courts shall operate as appellate courts" to review the judgments of inferior trial courts (remarks of Mr. Wilson)].) In addition, as explained above, the delegates expressly provided for original writ jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, which would of course permit discretionary writ review of matters outside the Supreme Court's "appellate jurisdiction" list. (See, e.g., Tyler v. Connolly (1884) 65 Cal. 28, 32-33 [ 2 P. 414 ] (conc. opn. of Morrison, C.J.) [although the "right of appeal" conferred by former art. VI, § 4 does not extend to contempt judgments, such judgments are nonetheless reviewable by discretionary writ].) Once again, the lead opinion does not support its conclusion that the drafters contemplated that a mere right to seek discretionary writ review would satisfy a litigant's constitutional "right of appeal."

The 1879 delegates intended to guarantee not simply a right to seek review, but a right to obtain review on the merits in a higher court. If the delegates had intended to guarantee only the amorphous "right to seek review of some kind" attributed to them by the lead opinion, the delegates would have made this unusual construction clear at some point during their extensive debates.

ii. The right to a written opinion "with reasons stated"

In yet another important respect, the 1879 delegates further clarified, and expanded on, what the "right of appeal" entailed. Immediately before the *141 above described debate about article VI, former section 4, the delegates debated and adopted another provision (art. VI, former § 2, 15th sentence) that remains essentially unchanged today (art. VI, § 14, 2d par.).

Two decades earlier, in Houston v. Williams (1859) 13 Cal. 24 , the court held unconstitutional a statute requiring that "`all decisions given upon an appeal in any Appellate Court of this State shall be given in writing, with the reason therefor, and filed with the Clerk of the Court....'" ( Id. at p. 25.) Justice Field, writing for the court, rejected the statute as an attack on the court's "dignity and independence." ( Ibid. )

The 1879 delegates viewed the "in writing" requirement otherwise. To them, it was necessary to ensure the quality and integrity of appellate court decisions. Hence, they moved to enshrine the invalidated statutory requirement in the Constitution. The following draft language was submitted: "In the determination of causes, all decisions of the Court in bank or in Departments shall be given in writing, and the grounds of the decision shall be stated." (2 Willis & Stockton, supra, at p. 950, col. 2.) Speaking on behalf of the provision, Mr. Wilson asserted:

"The importance of requiring the Court to give written opinions cannot be overrated. They not only become the settled law of the State, and are precedents for subsequent cases, but in many causes where the litigation is not ended by the decision of the Supreme Court, and new trials are consequent upon a reversal, the decision of the Supreme Court should be given in writing, and reasons assigned, for they are instructions to the Court below, and are the controlling rule in the subsequent litigation.... Undoubtedly [ the requirement of a written opinion ] will insure a careful examination of the cases, and result in well considered opinions, because they must come before the jurists of the country and be subjected to the severest criticism.... It tends to purity and honesty in the administration of justice." ( Id. at p. 951, col. 1, italics added.) There was no objection to the provision, and it was adopted. ( Id. at p. 957, col. 1.)

From this, two conclusions flow: first, the delegates intended that decisions of the Supreme Court in which a "cause" is determined (but not decisions of the superior court acting in an appellate capacity) must be in writing with reasons stated. Resolution by this court (or now, the Court of Appeal) of an appeal determines a "cause" within the meaning of the "in writing" provision. Accordingly, when the delegates later referred repeatedly to a "right of appeal," it seems plain that they contemplated a procedure that would include the right to an opinion in writing with reasons stated whenever this court (or now, the Court of Appeal) decides an appeal.

*142 Second — and quite apart from the question of whether the delegates intended to grant a "right of appeal" under article VI, former section 4 — the "in writing" requirement first set out in article VI, section 2, and presently existing in article VI, section 14, has independent significance for the review of writ petitions under section 6259(c). It is well established that, in other contexts, an appellate court may summarily deny a petition for an original writ without violating this constitutional provision. ( Funeral Dir. Assn. v. Bd. of Funeral Dirs. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 104, 106 [ 136 P.2d 785 ].) Nonetheless, past decisions have not considered the application of article VI, section 14, to a statutory scheme such as that established by section 6259(c), in which writ review has been substituted for appeal as the exclusive avenue by which the Court of Appeal reviews the superior court's disposition of an entire cause of action. [20] In the unique context of section 6259(c) — in which resolution of a writ petition decides the entire cause of action — it is contrary to the purpose and language of article VI, section 14, to suggest that a Court of Appeal ruling, resolving the writ petition, does not "determine a cause" within the meaning of this constitutional provision. Accordingly, it would appear that even under the lead opinion's view (i.e., assuming the drafters did not intend to grant litigants what the lead opinion terms a "direct appeal"), a Court of Appeal faced with a writ petition such as this would lack the authority to dispose of it summarily, i.e., without a written opinion. [21]

In conclusion, the record of the 1879 debates reveals that the delegates intended the Constitution's grant of appellate jurisdiction (former art. VI, § 4) to accomplish two things: It established this court's appellate jurisdiction and it also established for litigants a right of appeal — meaning a right to review on the merits and a written opinion with reasons stated — in all cases coming within the court's appellate jurisdiction. [22]

(b) Case law interpreting the 1879 Constitution — Tyler, Jordan & Perry

In decisions rendered shortly after the 1879 convention, and thus reflecting an essentially contemporaneous understanding of the drafters' intent, we acknowledged that former article VI, section 4 both established this court's appellate jurisdiction and granted a "right of appeal" (a right to review on the merits and a written opinion with reasons stated ) in cases within that appellate jurisdiction.

*143 Tyler v. Connolly, supra, 65 Cal. 28 ( Tyler ), a decision effectively ignored by the lead opinion, is the most significant. The case involved a $500 fine imposed under a contempt judgment against Tyler. Although established case law recognized a right to challenge contempt judgments by seeking the discretionary writs of habeas corpus, prohibition, and certiorari (see, e.g., Huerstal v. Muir (1880) 62 Cal. 479, 481 , and cases cited), Tyler was not content to settle for such discretionary and potentially summary review, and instead asserted his right to "appeal."

For over 30 years, however, the Legislature had prohibited appeals of contempt judgments. ( Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. 28, 30 , citing Code Civ. Proc., § 1222 (1872); see also Practice Act, § 493, Stats. 1851, ch. 5, § 493, p. 128.) Accordingly, the respondent moved to dismiss the appeal. In reply, Tyler asserted his "right of appeal" was conferred by the Constitution, former article VI, section 4 (65 Cal. at p. 29), and that Code of Civil Procedure section 1222 was unconstitutional.

The issue was thus framed: Even though an opportunity to seek "review" was available by discretionary writ, did the Constitution nevertheless grant Tyler a "right of appeal"? Contrary to suggestions of the lead opinion, when the Tyler court addressed this constitutional issue, it could not have labored under the assumption that discretionary writ review and review by appeal were constitutionally equivalent methods of satisfying a litigant's constitutional "right of appeal." As explained below, the court plainly recognized that the "right of appeal" asserted by Tyler was something different from, and greater than, the mere right to seek discretionary writ review, which might be denied summarily and without considering the merits.

The court rejected Tyler's claimed constitutional right of appeal because the judgment at issue fit nowhere in the jurisdiction list of former article VI, section 4. After quoting that provision, the majority said: "It is argued that because the judgment against Tyler exceeds three hundred dollars, that the appeal is given by the Constitution. But the Constitution does not give an appeal in all cases where the judgment exceeds three hundred dollars; it gives it only when the demand, exclusive of interest, exceeds that sum." ( Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. at pp. 29-30.) The majority in Tyler noted that there is no such "demand for a sum of money in a proceeding for a contempt." ( Id. at p. 30.) The Tyler majority also observed that, although the contempt at issue was criminal in nature, it was "not prosecuted by indictment or information," and hence "its character as a criminal case furnishes no ground for an appeal." ( Ibid., italics added.) The court concluded, "we find no warrant in the Constitution for an appeal in a proceeding for contempt." ( Ibid., italics added.)

*144 The concurring opinion in Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. 28 , echoed and amplified these points. Chief Justice Morrison addressed the petitioner's assertion that "the right of appeal is a constitutional right — not to be taken away by the legislature" ( id. at p. 31 (conc. opn. of Morrison, C.J.)), and proceeded to consider "if the right of appeal exists under the Constitution." ( Ibid. ) After quoting former article VI, section 4, the Chief Justice concluded that the contempt proceeding was a "criminal proceeding," but that because it was not "`prosecuted by indictment or information....'" (65 Cal. at p. 32), it did not fall within the language of former article VI, section 4, and hence there was no constitutional right of appeal in such a case. (65 Cal. at p. 32.) Significantly, however, Chief Justice Morrison observed that Tyler had an opportunity to seek review of his contempt judgment through "other modes of relief," namely, discretionary writ review "by certiorari or habeas corpus." ( Id. at pp. 32-33, italics in original.) In other words, the Chief Justice drew a distinction, implicit in the majority opinion, between matters over which the Constitution granted a "right of appeal," and other matters, such as contempt judgments, which are reviewable exclusively by a procedure other than "appeal," i.e., by discretionary writ.

In view of the fact that the contemner in Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. 28 , had a right to seek discretionary writ review, it is clear that the Tyler majority generally, and Chief Justice Morrison's concurring opinion in particular, necessarily rejected the theory advanced by the lead opinion today, namely, that the "right of appeal" could be satisfied by affording a litigant the opportunity to seek discretionary writ relief, which might be denied summarily and without considering the merits. Indeed, if the court believed the "right of appeal" would be satisfied by affording an opportunity to seek discretionary writ review, the court would have simply treated the purported appeal as a discretionary writ application. The fact that it did not do so, and instead engaged in an extensive analysis of the "right of appeal" under former article VI, section 4, demonstrates that the court did not equate an opportunity to seek discretionary writ review with a "right of appeal." Reading the court's two opinions together, Tyler reflects the court's understanding, rendered roughly contemporaneously with the drafting and ratification of the 1879 Constitution, that former article VI, section 4, provided a right of appeal — meaning a right to review on the merits and a written opinion, as opposed to a right to seek discretionary and potentially summary writ review — in cases within the list of matters giving rise to the court's appellate jurisdiction.

A few months later, in People v. Jordan (1884) 65 Cal. 644 [ 4 P. 683 ] ( Jordan ), we addressed the Legislature's failure to provide a means for the People to appeal from a superior court's judgment of dismissal after the *145 sustaining of a demurrer to an indictment. Unlike Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. 28 , Jordan was a case that was expressly within the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, and as to which there was, accordingly, a right of appeal. Consistently with the history described above, we noted in Jordan that because the matter involved a "criminal case[] prosecuted by indictment," the court was granted appellate jurisdiction under former article VI, section 4. Significantly, we concluded from this that the constitutional provision was self-executing : "[W]hen a certain jurisdiction has been conferred on this or any court, it is the duty of the court to exercise it; a duty of which it is not relieved by the failure of the legislature to provide a mode for its exercise." ( Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. at p. 646, italics added.) [23] Thereafter, we reiterated our "duty, imposed by the Constitution, of reviewing the proceedings of the court below" ( id. at p. 648), and asserted our power, "as necessarily incident to our jurisdiction," to "establish[] any appropriate practice for the bringing here [of] a record or proceeding in the court below." ( Ibid. )

In so proclaiming, we were careful to contrast our broad constitutional authority and duty with the more restrictive grant to the federal courts under the federal Constitution. ( Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. at p. 648.) We again stressed our inability to "refuse to exercise a jurisdiction imposed upon this court by the [state] Constitution" ( id. at p. 649), and concluded the court had "inherent" power to establish rules governing appeal in such cases. ( Ibid. ) Accordingly, we denied a motion to dismiss the pending appeal ( id. at p. 651), and in a separate decision filed shortly thereafter we proceeded to address and resolve the appeal on the merits. (See People v. Jordan (1884) 66 Cal. 10, 11-15 [ 4 P. 768 ] ( Jordan II ).)

We followed Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. 644 , in People v. Perry (1889) 79 Cal. 105 [ 21 P. 423 ] ( Perry ), which concerned an action to determine which of two persons was entitled to take appointive office. When the claimant who failed to prevail in the superior court appealed to this court, the other claimant moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the matter was outside this court's appellate jurisdiction. ( Id. at p. 107.) We rejected the argument, stating: "[T]his court retains jurisdiction of the case, notwithstanding the [Legislature] may have changed the procedure, enlarged the remedy, and given it a new name. To hold otherwise would be to admit a power in the [Legislature] to abridge our jurisdiction, and take from the parties the right of appeal, by the easy device of a change of procedure, in many cases, where the right and jurisdiction are unquestioned." ( 79 Cal. at p. 108 , first italics in *146 original, second added; see also Estate of Nelson (1900) 128 Cal. 242, 245 [ 60 P. 772 ] ["The right of appeal is conferred by the constitution, and statutes and rules of procedure for its exercise are to be liberally construed."].)

In Jordan, Perry, and Estate of Nelson , all supra, the respondents sought to dismiss what the lead opinion terms "direct appeals" — i.e., proceedings in which the appellants claimed a right to review on the merits and a written opinion. In each case this court rejected those arguments and held the appellants had a right, derived from our Constitution (former art. VI, § 4), to proceed with the appeal. The lead opinion's strained attempt to read Jordan and Perry otherwise is unpersuasive.

Concerning Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. 644 , the lead opinion asserts: "Because the Legislature had not authorized review by extraordinary writ, we did not consider whether appellate review in that form would have satisfied the `appellate jurisdiction' provision of the 1879 Constitution. Significantly, however, we referred to the Legislature's failure to provide `a mode' for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction ( People v. Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. 644, 646 ), thereby necessarily implying that more than one such mode was possible...." (Lead opn., ante, at p. 101.)

Nothing in Jordan supports the lead opinion's speculation that, had the constitutional adequacy of discretionary writ review been raised, we might have held that the Legislature could relegate the People to the mere opportunity to seek such discretionary review. Nor does the lead opinion's selective quotation support its point. When read in context (see ante, at pp. 144-146), and in view of the fact that the Jordan court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal ( Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. at p. 651) and ultimately addressed and resolved the matter before it on appeal ( Jordan II, supra, 66 Cal. 10, 11-15 ), it is clear that the court's reference to "a mode" pertained to the procedural rules for presentation of the People's "direct appeal," and was not, as the lead opinion divines, an oblique and veiled hint that the People's right under article VI, former section 4, would be adequately protected by the opportunity to seek discretionary writ review.

Perry, supra, 79 Cal. 105 , is likewise mistreated by the lead opinion, which asserts that when the court spoke of the "right of appeal," it really meant to say "appellate review generally rather than ... the specific procedure known as a direct appeal." (Lead opn., ante, at p. 102.) The difficulty with this analysis is that "the specific procedure known as a direct appeal" was the only procedure at issue in the case. If the Perry court had actually done what the lead opinion asserts it intended to do, the court would *147 have neglected its obligation to address and resolve the sole issue raised by the appellant — his right to appeal, i.e., review on the merits and a written opinion. Judicial decisions are of course authority for what they actually decide; we do not readjust their holdings to incorporate claims not asserted or considered therein. The lead opinion's proposed reinterpretation of Perry is unconvincing.

Equally unpersuasive is the lead opinion's reliance on In re Jessup (1889) 81 Cal. 408 [ 22 P. 742 ] ( Jessup ). First, contrary to the lead opinion's suggestion, Jessup does not purport to provide an all-purpose definition of our constitutional "appellate jurisdiction." Jessup considered the Legislature's authority to require that a decision of this court to grant rehearing be supported by a vote of five of seven justices. We declared the statute unconstitutional, observing that "`the mere procedure by which jurisdiction is to be exercised may be prescribed by the legislature, unless, indeed, such regulations should be found to substantially impair the constitutional powers of the courts, or practically defeat their exercise.' We concede the power to regulate, but not the power to take away or defeat, the exercise of jurisdiction. And this, in our opinion, the legislature has ... attempted to accomplish." ( Jessup, supra, 81 Cal. at p. 470 , italics added by Jessup court.)

Before reaching that conclusion the Jessup court considered "the extent of the power implied ex vi termini by the phrase `appellate jurisdiction.' That this embraces the right to review the final judgments of the courts of original jurisdiction, — the right, in other words, to reverse, affirm, or modify them, and to enforce by some appropriate mandatory process the judgment of the appellate tribunal, — will scarcely be denied." ( 81 Cal. at p. 465 , italics added.) Viewed in context, it seems clear that Jessup's sole focus was on the power granted to the court by the Constitution; it did not purport to define "appellate jurisdiction" outside that limited context or for all purposes, and indeed, its observation that the term "embraces" certain powers would seem to underscore the restricted scope of its inquiry. [24]

Finally, the lead opinion finds Jessup, supra, 81 Cal. 408 "significant also because it further supports the conclusion that a court may exercise `appellate jurisdiction' by means other than direct appeal." (Lead opn., ante, at p. 103.) To the extent Jessup supports that unchallenged (and correct) principle, first articulated in People v. Turner, supra, 1 Cal. 143 , it is irrelevant to the present case for the same reason Turner is irrelevant. (See, ante, at p. 132.) The fact that a court may, under its "appellate jurisdiction," exercise discretion to grant extraordinary writ relief sought by a party in certain situations, *148 says nothing about the present and converse situation, i.e., whether the Legislature may preclude "appeal" and limit the parties to seek discretionary writ review. Nothing in Jessup, supra, is inconsistent with the proposition, established in our cases before and after Jessup , that the Constitution grants a right of appeal — i.e., review on the merits and a written opinion — on review from the superior court to the Court of Appeal and this court.

E. The 1904 amendments

1. Appellate jurisdiction

In 1904, the Courts of Appeal were created. The appellate jurisdiction of those courts was established and that of the Supreme Court was modified. The list of matters giving rise to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction was narrowed to provide for "appellate jurisdiction on appeal from the Superior Courts[ [25] ] in all cases in equity, except such as arise in Justices' Courts; also, in all cases at law which involve the title or possession of real estate, or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll, or municipal fine, or in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to two thousand dollars; also, in all such probate matters as may be provided by law; also, on questions of law alone, in all criminal cases where judgment of death has been rendered; the said court shall also have appellate jurisdiction in all cases, matters, and proceedings pending before a District Court of Appeal which shall be ordered by the Supreme Court to be transferred to itself for hearing and decision...." (Cal. Const. of 1879, art. VI, § 4, as amended Nov. 8, 1904.)

That which was taken from the Supreme Court's initial appellate jurisdiction, and more, was given to the appellate jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeal. Those courts were vested with "appellate jurisdiction on appeal from the Superior Courts in all cases at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to three hundred dollars, and does not amount to two thousand dollars; also, in all cases of forcible entry and detainer (except such as arise in Justices' Courts), in proceedings in insolvency, and in actions to prevent or abate a nuisance; in proceedings of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition,[ [26] ] usurpation of office, contesting elections and eminent domain, and in such other special *149 proceedings as may be provided by law (excepting cases in which appellate jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court); also, on questions of law alone, in all criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or information in a court of record, excepting criminal cases where a judgment of death has been rendered. The said courts shall also have appellate jurisdiction in all cases, matters, and proceedings pending before the Supreme Court which shall be ordered by the Supreme Court to be transferred to a District Court of Appeal for hearing and decision." (Cal. Const. of 1879, art. VI, § 4, as amended Nov. 8, 1904, italics added.)

2. The right of appeal — Gale and Sutter-Butte

We applied the 1904 version of former article VI, section 4, in Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co. (1914) 169 Cal. 46 [ 145 P. 532 ] ( Gale ), another case essentially ignored by the lead opinion. Like Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. 28 , Gale was an attempted appeal from a contempt judgment. And, as in Tyler, supra, the contemner in Gale asserted a constitutional right of appeal under former article VI, section 4, this time on the basis that the contempt judgment was appealable as being a "`case in equity.'" ( Gale, supra, 169 Cal. at p. 51 .) The Gale court accepted the premise that "section 4 of article VI of the constitution ... provides for an appeal from the superior court to the supreme court `in all cases in equity except as arise in the justices' courts,'" but explained that a contempt proceeding is not a case in equity for purposes of the constitutional provision. ( Gale, supra, 169 Cal. at p. 51 .) The court conceded that "the right of appeal" is "derived from our constitution" ( id. at p. 52), but observed that because "the constitution nowhere, expressly or impliedly, gives a right of appeal in cases of contempt" ( ibid., italics added), the statute prohibiting appeal of contempt judgments (Code Civ. Proc., § 1222) did not conflict with former article VI, section 4, and was thus constitutional. ( 169 Cal. at p. 52 .)

Gale is significant in two respects. First, it reconfirms the court's view (set out in Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. 28 ) that litigants were granted a constitutional "right of appeal" in matters within the appellate jurisdiction list of former article VI, section 4. Second, and again like Tyler, supra, Gale's analysis of the constitutional right of appeal disproves the lead opinion's thesis that the court used the term "right of appeal" loosely to describe a right of review either by discretionary writ or by appeal. As in Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. 28 , the contemner in Gale already had a right to seek discretionary writ review. Accordingly, the Gale court spoke exclusively about what the lead opinion terms "direct appeal," i.e., a right to review on the merits and a *150 written opinion, when it discussed whether the contemner had a constitutional right of appeal.

Almost a decade later we again confirmed the existence and scope of the "right of appeal" in In re Sutter-Butte By-Pass Assessment (1923) 190 Cal. 532 [ 213 P. 974 ] ( Sutter-Butte ). Sutter-Butte was an appeal from a judgment concerning the legality of a tax assessment. As in the present case, the respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, citing a statute that expressly made such matters "` final and conclusive, '" and hence nonappealable. ( Id. at p. 535, italics added.)

As noted above, the same italicized language had been long employed in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1222, and had been interpreted as precluding appeal of contempt judgments and yet permitting the opportunity to seek discretionary writ relief challenging such judgments. (See, e.g., Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. at pp. 32-33 (conc. opn. of Morrison, C.J.); Huerstal v. Muir, supra, 62 Cal. 479, 481 , and cases cited.) Accordingly, as in Tyler, supra, and Gale, supra, 169 Cal. 46 , the appellants in Sutter-Butte had a right to seek discretionary review to challenge the tax assessment.

But again, as in Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. 28 , and Gale, supra, 169 Cal. 46 , the appellants in Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. 532 , declined to settle for a mere opportunity to seek discretionary and potentially summary writ review; instead, they asserted a constitutional right of appeal, and claimed the statute precluding appeal was unconstitutional. We found that the statute purported to forbid "appeal," but concluded the statute violated former article VI, section 4, which expressly granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over, and therefore granted a right of appeal in, such litigation.

The appellants claimed the statute was unconstitutional on two grounds. They asserted "that the validating proceeding provided for by the act in question is in its essence either a suit in equity or one at law involving the validity of an assessment and, therefore, falls within the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon this court and guaranteed to litigants by that constitutional provision which provides that this court shall have appellate jurisdiction `on appeal from the superior courts ... in all cases in equity ...; also in all cases at law which involve the... legality of any tax, ... assessment, etc....' (Const., art. 6, § 4.)" ( Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. at p. 536 .) We resolved the question as follows:

"[I]t is the settled rule of law that if the right of appeal is constitutionally granted in any given case such right cannot be destroyed nor delimited by legislative enactment. `The courts of this state derive their powers and *151 jurisdiction from the constitution of the state. The constitutional jurisdiction can neither be restricted nor enlarged by legislative act. An attempt to take away from the courts judicial power conferred upon them by the constitution is void.' ( Pacific Telephone etc. Co. v. Eshelman [(1913)] 166 Cal. 640, 690 [ 137 P. 1119 ] (conc. opn. of Sloss, J.), italics added.)[ [27] ] The case last cited, and other cases assembled and referred to therein, recognize that litigants have a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal in all litigated matters within the express jurisdiction of appellate courts. " ( Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. at p. 536 , italics added.)

We continued, in language relied on by plaintiffs in this case: "And if the legislature cannot take away this right by direct enactment neither can it accomplish the same result by any indirect device. While the legislature has, ordinarily, the power to create a new remedy for the enforcement of a right or a defense against a wrong, it cannot, under the guise of creating a new statutory remedy, deprive a litigant of an existing constitutionally guaranteed right to defend, even unto a court of last resort, against the enforcement of an alleged right. This right to so defend, once existing, continues regardless of the form in which the legislature may cast the remedy. In other words, as was said in the case of People v. Perry [, supra, ] 79 Cal. 105 , 108: `This court retains jurisdiction of the case, notwithstanding the legislature may have changed the procedure, enlarged the remedy and given it a new name. To *152 hold otherwise would be to admit a power in the legislature to abridge our jurisdiction and to take from parties the right of appeal by the easy device of a change of procedure in many cases where the right and jurisdiction are unquestioned.'" ( Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. at pp. 536-537, italics added.)

We concluded that a "right of appeal" existed on the basis of both grounds advanced by the appellants, i.e., the underlying litigation was a case in equity and a case involving the legality of a tax or assessment.

On the first point, Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. at page 537 stated: "In other words, the legislature cannot by the creation of a new remedy deprive this court of its constitutional grant of appellate jurisdiction if the right involved in the execution of the remedy is of a character which in its very essence is equitable and was of an equitable nature and character at the time of the adoption of the constitutional provision which gave to this court appellate jurisdiction over the subject matter of the remedy. It follows, therefore, that if the proceeding before us is included in that class of cases, in contradistinction to special proceedings, over which appellate jurisdiction has been given by the constitution the appellants have a constitutionally guaranteed right of appeal of which they cannot be deprived." (Italics added.) We concluded the action was not a "special proceeding," and that it had the "characteristics" of a suit in equity. ( Id. at pp. 537-538.)

We also observed that the appellants had a constitutional right of appeal because the action was "well within the letter and spirit of the constitutional provision which grants to this court and guarantees to litigants the right, beyond legislative control, to an appeal in all cases, either at law or in equity, involving the validity of any tax or assessment." ( Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. at p. 539 .)

In the course of its analysis, the Sutter-Butte court further stressed that the constitutional right of appeal should be broadly construed and enforced so long as the "substance" of the matter appealed from falls within the scope of one of the categories listed in former article VI, section 4. This is so, the court said, even if "at first blush" the appeal does not appear to fall within the list of matters that are appealable under the section. ( Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. at p. 538 .) [28]

*153 The lead opinion attempts to distinguish Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. 532 , on two grounds. First it asserts that because the statute at issue in Sutter-Butte, supra, made the challenged decision "`final and conclusive'" ( id. at p. 535), our decision in that case concerned a legislative scheme that, unlike the PRA, purported to preclude both review by appeal and review by writ. But Sutter-Butte is not thus distinguishable: As noted above, the quoted statutory phrase has long been construed as simultaneously barring appeal, and yet permitting review by discretionary writ. [29]

Second, the lead opinion attempts to distinguish Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. 532 , on the same ground on which it failed to distinguish Jordan, supra, 65 Cal. 644 , and Perry, supra, 79 Cal. 105 . It asserts that when the Sutter-Butte court repeatedly said the appellants had a constitutional "right of appeal," it meant only that they had "a right to some effective procedural vehicle by which to invoke the constitutionally conferred appellate jurisdiction" (lead opn., ante, at p. 104) — presumably, a right to seek discretionary writ review.

The posture of the Sutter-Butte litigation disproves the lead opinion's strained reading. As noted above, the appellants in Sutter-Butte, supra, 190 Cal. 532 , like the would-be appellants in Tyler, supra, 65 Cal. 28 , and Gale, supra, 169 Cal. 46 , had a right to challenge the tax assessment by seeking a discretionary writ. Also like the contemners in Tyler and Gale , however, they were not content to settle for discretionary and potentially summary review, and instead asserted a right to "appeal" in the face of a statute that foreclosed review on appeal. In this context, when the Sutter-Butte court considered whether the appellants had a right of "appeal," it could not possibly have intended to equate an opportunity to seek discretionary writ review, which right the appellants already had, with the right of "appeal," which the appellants sought. Indeed, if, as the lead opinion claims, the Sutter-Butte court meant only that the appellants had "a right to some effective procedural vehicle by which to invoke the constitutionally co

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.