# The Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · January 31, 1940 · 15 Cal. 2d 99

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629364

## Case

- **Full name:** The TIMES-MIRROR COMPANY (A Corporation) Et Al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE TIMES-MIRROR COMPANY (A Corporation) Et Al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 31, 1940
- **Citations:** 15 Cal. 2d 99
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Edmonds
- **Judges:** Curtis, Edmonds
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9629364

## Opinion text

EDMONDS, J., Dissenting.
In the ease of Bridges v. The Superior Court, 14 Cal. (2d) 464 [ 94 Pac. (2d) 983 ], I stated at length the reasons for my opinion that section 1209 of the Code of Civil Procedure is constitutional and should be upheld. This statute which was adopted almost fifty years ago and within a few months after a newspaper editor had been found guilty of contempt of court, declares the public policy of the people of this state in regard to publications relating to a judge which are not made in the immediate presence of a court while in session and in such manner as to actually interfere with judicial proceedings.
Whether persons should be allowed to write or speak about a court or judge under the conditions mentioned in the statute without being subject to prosecution for contempt of court in summary proceedings, is a question upon which there will always be great difference of opinion. But it is not the province of a court to determine the policy which is most conducive to human welfare and governmental stability. That is the legislative function, and the judicial department may only consider whether the determination of the legislature violates a constitutional guarantee.
In my judgment, the opinions of this court in former cases where the statute was in question were written with more concern for upholding the inherent power of courts than for the constitutional guarantees of free speech and a free press. Yet the experience of New York and Pennsylvania, where laws similar to that of California have been in effect for over one hundred years, show that neither the existence of nor respect for courts has been seriously challenged by taking from judicial officers the uncontrolled right to pass upon alleged constructive contempts of court. Judicial necessity based upon the claim of inherent power is neither reason nor authority Jor setting aside a statute which expresses the policy of the people of this state concerning acts which might otherwise be punishable as constructive contempts.
For these reasons I believe that each of the judgments should be reversed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629364. Public record. Not legal advice.