# People v. Brigham

> California Supreme Court · September 7, 1979 · 25 Cal. 3d 283

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629213

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRED DAVID BRIGHAM, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 7, 1979
- **Citations:** 25 Cal. 3d 283; 157 Cal. Rptr. 905; 599 P.2d 100; 1979 Cal. LEXIS 307
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Newman
- **Judges:** Newman, Bird, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 94 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629213

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining at length the problems with moral certainty

## Opinion text

NEWMAN, J.
I dissent because I do not believe that traditional boundaries of the right to oral argument are the same as the boundaries that the California Constitution prescribes.
From part II of the 1979 Annual Report of the Judicial Council we learn that “total filings” in the Courts of Appeal were 6,411 in 1967-1968, 13,018 in 1977-1978. In this court the parallel totals were 2,959 and 3,881. . ., (See pp. 47 and 43.)
X? Do not those and related statistics suggest that in this state the work of appellate judges may be suffering because of a serious overload? Many improvements will be essential, I think. It would be unfortunate if needed experiments and reforms were blocked by archaic assumptions as to how, in fact, oral argument most efficiently helps promote justice.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 18, 1979. . Clark, J., and Newman, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be .granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629213. Public record. Not legal advice.