Opinion

In Re Marriage of Flaherty

  • 31 Cal. 3d 637
  • 183 Cal. Rptr. 508
  • 646 P.2d 179
  • 1982 Cal. LEXIS 189
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 17, 1982
Status
Published
Author
Newman
On the bench
Bird, Newman
Cited by
723 cases

“An appeal that is simply without merit is not by definition frivolous and should not incur sanctions”].

How later courts described this case

  • “An appeal that is simply without merit is not by definition frivolous and should not incur sanctions”].

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

NEWMAN, J.,

Concurring and Dissenting. — I concur, but I do not agree that “holding a hearing” (ante, this page) is prerequisite to penalizing counsel for a frivolous appeal. The question of frivolousness can be raised at several stages; e.g., by motion to dismiss or at a settlement conference. When counsel knows the charge against him prior to briefing or oral argument, he may use either of those routes to reply. Sometimes, it is true, the court will not perceive the question until after briefing and argument have been completed; and notice may first reach counsel in the form of a declaration, in the court’s decision or opinion, that sanctions are proposed. Even then, however, the decision or opinion *655 when merely filed is not final; and there is an opportunity to respond— e.g., via petition for rehearing. The issues routinely would be legal, not factual; and counsel’s written argument normally would suffice. (See 2 Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (2d ed. 1979) § 10.9, p. 337: “Does Due Process Require Opportunity to Present Oral Argument? [11] The answer is an unqualified no . .. . ” Cf. his 1982 supp., § 10.1, p. 204: “[T]oo many judges still fail to think in terms of possibly requiring notice and opportunity for informal response.” [Italics added.]) If for any reason a mini-hearing seemed appropriate, Code of Civil Procedure section 187 authorizes “any suitable process or mode of proceeding . . ..”

If a ruling on frivolousness of which counsel had no warning appears in an opinion certified for publication, there is danger that the “severe sanction” of criticism (ante, p. 652) will have effect before a petition for rehearing can be filed or considered. I think that in that situation publication should be deferred until the opinion becomes final as to the court filing it, with additional time to permit counsel to seek a stay from a reviewing court.

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.