Woo-hoo! This is the sort of thing an appellate nerd like me gets excited about. The California Supreme Court has introduced a terrific new feature to its website. The court has posted links to the briefs in the cases on the court’s September 2 oral argument calendar (including Roby v. McKesson). The links include both the review-stage briefs and the merits-stage briefs. I certainly hope the court continues this feature for future argument calendars.

Hat tip: The Complex Litigator. As Scott at the Complex Litigator points out, this may be the court’s response to a recent controversy over the court’s distribution of briefs to Lexis and WESTLAW. Unlike those fee-based services, the court’s website makes the briefs freely available to anyone, conveniently grouped together so that no searching is necessary.

The California Supreme Court today denied a request to publish the Court of Appeal opinion in Buell-Wilson v. Ford. (See the court’s online docket.) Justice Werdegar dissented.

The order denying publication is good news for defendants, especially products liability defendants, because the Buell-Wilson opinion included some language that would make it more difficult to defeat punitive damages claims in such cases.

For those of you who haven’t been following the Buell-Wilson saga, the Court of Appeal in this case reaffirmed a $55 million punitive damages award even after the US Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeal’s prior opinion affirming the same award. As far as we know, Buell-Wilson is the largest punitive damages award ever to survive appeal in California.

The California Supreme Court granted review, which had the effect of de-publishing the Court of Appeal’s published opinion. The Supreme Court put the case on hold pending the outcome if Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III). When the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Williams III, the Cal. Supreme Court did the same in Buell-Wilson.

The dismissal left Ford on the hook for the judgment, but did not restore the published status of the Court of Appeal opinion. Consumer lawyers Bisnar & Chase asked the Supreme Court to re-publish the Court of Appeal opinion. In California, anyone can submit such a request, although they are rarely granted. Requesting publication in this case was a saavy move, but ultimately unsuccessful.

This will bring an end the Buell-Wilson saga, unless Ford can get the U.S. Supreme Court to step in once again.

According to the California Supreme Court’s conference results list, the court has declined to review Blanks v. Seyfarth Shaw, a case we discussed in a prior post.

The California Supreme Court has changed its mind about reviewing the $55 million punitive damages award in Buell-Wilson v. Ford. The Court issued an order today dismissing review, according to the court’s online docket.

As we noted in our prior post about this case, the plaintiff in Buell-Wilson moved to dismiss review in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss certiorari in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III). The Supreme Court could have used Buell-Wilson to decide some important issues raised by the petition which had nothing to do with the issue in Williams III. But the Supreme Court decided to remand the case back to the Court of Appeal without deciding anything.

Although the Supreme Court won’t be addressing any of the issues raised by Buell-Wilson, the Supreme Court’s grant of review has an important consequence for California punitive damages litigation. When the Supreme Court granted review, the Court of Appeal’s published opinion was automatically de-published, preventing litigants from citing that opinion in any California court. (See California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(e) and 8.1115(a).) Even though the Supreme Court dismissed review, the Court of Appeal’s opinion in Buell-Wilson remains depublished and uncitable. That’s good news for other defendants in products liability cases in California, because the opinion contained some language making it easier for plaintiffs to recover punitive damages in such cases. But the depublication of Buell-Wilson is cold comfort for Ford, which must now pay the $55 million punitive damages award upheld by the Court of Appeal.

UPDATE: Cal Biz Lit blogs about the dismissal here.

Last December we blogged about the Court of Appeal’s published opinion in Food Pro v. Farmers, which rejected a plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages in an insurance bad faith case.

The insurance company petitioned for review to the California Supreme Court (see the court’s online docket here). Obviously they weren’t challenging the opinion’s punitive damages analysis; they were challenging the portion of the opinion in which the Court of Appeal concluded (contrary to the trial court’s ruling) that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured from a third party lawsuit. The Supreme Court denied review yesterday, according to the Supreme Court’s conference results.

Although the petition for review did not address the punitive damages issue, the denial of review is relevant to this blog. If the Supreme Court had granted review, the entire opinion, including the punitive damages discussion, would have been vacated (and therefore not citeable in California courts).

The plaintiff in Buell-Wilson has asked the California Supreme Court to dismiss review in that case. (See the court’s online docket.)

The court agreed to review Buell-Wilson last year but deferred briefing pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Williams III. As we noted last week, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss certiorari in Williams III without deciding the case could cause the California Supreme Court to dimiss review in Buell-Wilson as well. On the other hand, the petition in Buell-Wilson raises recurring issues that are not related to Williams III, so perhaps the court will call for briefing on the merits in Buell-Wilson notwithstanding the dismissal in Williams III.

As we noted below, the U.S. Supreme Court today dismissed certiorari in Philip Morris v. Williams (Williams III). Among the many questions raised by the dismissal is what will happen in Buell-Wilson v. Ford, currently pending before the California Supreme Court.

The Cal. Supremes granted review in Buell-Wilson last summer, but deferred briefing pending the disposition of Williams III. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed Williams III without a decision , the Cal. Supreme Court will either have to order briefing in Buell-Wilson and address the issue that was unaddressed in Williams III, or dismiss review in that case as well. As my co-blogger Jeremy Rosen pointed out, two of the three issues raised in the Buell-Wilson petition for review are not dependent on the outcome of Williams III, so even if the court decides not to address the Williams III issue, it may decide to resolve these issues.