Opinion

Superior Court v. County of Mendocino

  • 13 Cal. 4th 45
  • 96 Daily Journal DAR 4517
  • 51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 837
  • 913 P.2d 1046
  • 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2739
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Apr 18, 1996
Status
Published
Author
Lucas
On the bench
George, Lucas
Cited by
110 cases

“The executive branch ... may not disregard legislatively prescribed directives and limits” on its exercise of executive powers

How later courts described this case

  • “The executive branch ... may not disregard legislatively prescribed directives and limits” on its exercise of executive powers
  • “[T]he substantial interrelatedness of the three branches’ actions is apparent and commonplace[.]”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

LUCAS, C. J.

I concur. As the majority explains, the Mendocino County Superior Court’s constitutional challenge to Government Code section 68108 is a facial one. We are not deciding the more difficult question whether the statute, as applied in this case, materially impairs judicial functions of the superior court.

I am somewhat troubled by the majority’s failure to address the question whether the Legislature had the power to delegate to the various counties *67 authority to declare unpaid judicial furlough days. The majority states that because the contention was not raised in the Court of Appeal, it is not properly before us. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 66, fn. 12.) But the issue appears on the face of the statute, was at least mentioned by the Court of Appeal in its opinion, and certainly we could have requested further briefing on it.

As the Court of Appeal observes in describing the statutory scheme before us, “Thus, however, anomalous it may seem, the Legislature has now established a system under which the judges of a court may choose to conduct night court on New Year’s Eve, but are absolutely precluded from conducting court on days designated by county boards of supervisors as ‘unpaid furlough days.’ ” (Italics added.)

Thus, on the face of the statutory scheme, County “A” could select no unpaid furlough days while County “B” presumably could select 200 of them. Given the potential for disruption, unfairness, and confusion that could arise if each individual county were at liberty to choose the date and number of unpaid furlough days for that particular county, the Legislature’s delegation to the counties may well be subject to serious challenge.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.