# People v. Superior Court (Wells)

> California Supreme Court · July 10, 1980 · 27 Cal. 3d 670

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847749

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; JOHNNY WELLS, JR., Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 10, 1980
- **Citations:** 27 Cal. 3d 670; 165 Cal. Rptr. 872; 612 P.2d 962; 1980 Cal. LEXIS 191
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bird
- **Judges:** Clark, Newman, Bird
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9847749

## Opinion text

BIRD, C. J.
I concur in the majority opinion but I write separately to strongly dissent from the view of my colleague, Justice Newman, that this court use a unique interpretation of California Rules of Court, rule 29(a), to reduce the work of a justice.
To support his position, Justice Newman cites language from a 30-year-old case involving an interpretation as to what rule Congress intended the federal courts to use in weighing the adequacy of an administrative agency’s findings. Next, he suggests a “parallel rule” be *676 applied by this court when deciding whether to grant or deny hearings. As an example, he denominates issues which involve a possible violation of the Bill of Rights embodied in our Constitution as “marginal matters.” He suggests that violations of these basic rights be reviewed by this court “only in what ought to be the rare instance when the standard appears to have been misapprehended or grossly misapplied.” (Cone, opn. by Newman, J., at p. 675.)
Such an interpretation ignores the central role of the judiciary in our system of government. To advocate that this court dismiss violations of the state and federal Constitutions as merely “marginal matters” and then to suggest that limitations be imposed on our responsibilities in those cases as a means of lightening this court’s workload cannot and should not go unchallenged. What price is this court being asked to pay for less work? Further, if this court is not the protector of the rights of our citizens under the Bill of Rights, who is?

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847749. Public record. Not legal advice.