Some cases spend only a relatively short amount of time on the Supreme Court’s docket, with decisions not that long after a grant of review. (See, e.g., People v. Rojas, review granted in October 2022 and party briefing completed in July 2023; the case was argued two months ago with an opinion due by the end of this month.) Other cases linger, however.

To identify the top lingerers, we looked for the matters with the lowest case numbers on the court’s pending issues summaries.

Not counting automatic death penalty appeals, which are in a category all of their own, the ten oldest cases on the court’s docket appear to be:

  1. People v. Kopp — the court granted review in November 2019 and it limited the issues to:  “Must a court consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing or executing fines, fees, and assessments?  If so, which party bears the burden of proof regarding defendant’s inability to pay?” Party briefing was completed in January 2021. Amicus briefing was completed in December 2021. (Horvitz & Levy is co-counsel for amicus UC Irvine law school’s Consumer Law Clinic.) A December 2022 docket entry notes that a justice is recused, but it doesn’t say who. The latest docket entries, in October 2023, show a defense motion — and the People’s response to the motion — to stay the appeal and for a limited remand or, in the alternative, for calendar preference. No oral argument letter has been sent yet.
  2. In re Vaquera — the court also granted review in November 2019. The issues, as summarized by court staff, are: (1) Did the Court of Appeal err by disagreeing with People v Jimenez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 373 and endorsing as mandatory the sentencing practice prohibited in that case; (2) Is the Court of Appeal’s decision incorrect under People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735; (3) Did the Court of Appeal err by failing to address petitioner’s claims as to the issues of waiver and estoppel? Briefing was completed in June 2020. The oral argument letter was sent in September and the case was argued last month.
  3. People v. Williams — the court granted review in July 2020 and limited the issue to: “Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults convicted and sentenced for serious sex crimes under the One Strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61) from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults convicted of first degree murder are entitled to such consideration?” Party briefing was completed in July 2021. Amicus briefing was completed in August 2022. No oral argument letter has been sent yet.
  4. Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office — the court granted review in December 2020. The issue, as summarized by court staff, is: Did the Court of Appeal properly affirm summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claims of hostile work environment based on race, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation? Party briefing was completed in July 2021. Amicus briefing was completed in September 2021. No oral argument letter has been sent yet.
  5. Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC — the court granted review in February 2021. The issues, as summarized by court staff, are: (1) Does the statutory restitution remedy under the Song-Beverly Act (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) necessarily include an offset for a trade-in credit? (2) If the amount that a consumer has received in a trade-in transaction must be subtracted from the consumer’s recovery, should that amount be subtracted from the statutory restitution remedy or from the consumer’s total recovery? The parties’ initial briefing was completed in November 2021. Amicus briefing was completed in January 2022. The oral argument letter was sent in September and the case was argued today.
  6. Prang v. Amen — the court granted review in March 2021. The issue, as summarized by court staff, is: Does the term “stock” in Revenue and Taxation Code section 62, subdivision (a)(2), which defines when certain transactions transferring real property will or will not result in a change of ownership calling for reassessment of the property, refer to all types of stock shares, or only voting shares? Party briefing was completed in June 2021. Amicus briefing was completed in July 2021. No oral argument letter has been sent yet.
  7. People v. Flores — this is a special case. The court granted-and-held in April 2021. This past July, seven months after the lead case was decided (the decision was more than two years after review was granted in that case), the court un-held Flores and asked the parties to brief, “Was defendant’s detention supported by reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity?” (See here.) Briefing is almost complete; the reply brief is now due December 11.
  8. Golden State Water Company v. Public Utilities Commission — this is a special case, too. The court issued a writ of review concerning PUC water rate decisions in May 2022, but that was 11 months after the water company filed its petition. Party and amicus briefing has been completed since January 2023.
  9. Taking Offense v. State of California — the court granted review in November 2021. The issue, as summarized by court staff, is: Did the Court of Appeal err in declaring the provision of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights (Health & Saf. Code, § 1439.51) that criminalizes the willful and repeated failure to use a resident’s chosen name and pronouns unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment? Party briefing was completed in June 2022. Well, it was completed until May of this year when the court ordered supplemental briefing about “[w]hether California recognizes a common law taxpayer standing doctrine to bring actions against state officials” and, if so, “whether the plaintiff in this case has established any such standing.” (See here.) Amicus briefing was completed in September 2022. The supplemental briefing was completed in August 2023.
  10. Haggerty v. Thornton — the court granted review in December 2021. The issue, as summarized by court staff, is: Can a trust be modified according to the statutory procedures for revocation of a trust (Prob. Code, § 15401) if the trust instrument itself sets forth identical procedures for modification and revocation? Initial party briefing was completed in July 2022. Amicus briefing was completed in October 2022. The oral argument letter was sent in August, the court found attorneys had stated good cause not to have the case on the October or November calendars, and the case was argued today.