Supreme Court of California, in the context of summary denial of pretrial petition for writ of mandamus, holding that “[a] short statement or citation explaining the basis for the summary denial does not transform the denial into a decision of a cause entitled to law of the case effect.”
How later courts described this case
- Supreme Court of California, in the context of summary denial of pretrial petition for writ of mandamus, holding that “[a] short statement or citation explaining the basis for the summary denial does not transform the denial into a decision of a cause entitled to law of the case effect.”
- acknowledging that Consumers Lobby is an exception to the general rule
- “A short statement or citation explaining the basis for the summary denial does not transform the denial into a decision of a cause entitled to law of the case effect.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the judgment and in most of the analysis. But I cannot join the majority in unnecessarily reaching out to overrule a decision of this court that has been the prevailing law for almost 30 years.
Pigeon Point Ranch, Inc. v. Perot (1963) 59 Cal.2d 227 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 865 , 379 P.2d 321 ], was authored by Chief Justice Gibson and concurred in by Justices Traynor, McComb, Peters, Tobriner, Peek, and White. I doubt that we are more competent to determine the rather simple rule of law involved than was one of the most distinguished courts in California history. Its opinion was sound when written, and three decades later it is not an obstacle to the result in the instant case.
According to Pigeon Point, law of the case is subject to “the requirements that the point of law involved must have been necessary to the prior decision, that the matter must have been actually presented and determined by the court, and that application of the doctrine will not result in an unjust decision.” ( 59 Cal.2d at p. 231 .)
The foregoing was a practical rule then, and it is equally practical now. As Pigeon Point expressly declared, the fact that “law of the case will not be *902 applied so as to do an injustice will be ample protection to the parties if any unfairness would result.” ( 59 Cal.2d at p. 232 .)
Pigeon Point would in no way prevent the result properly reached in the matter before us. Unnecessarily overruling that venerable authority is counterproductive to stability in the law.