This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

California Supreme Court,
Appellate Practice

Feb. 19, 2019

Oral arguments before the California Supreme Court

My critique might be right, and it might be wrong. But I think it's important to begin a discussion of this issue.

Myron Moskovitz

Legal Director
Moskovitz Appellate Team

90 Crocker Ave
Piedmont , CA 94611-3823

Phone: (510) 384-0354

Email: myronmoskovitz@gmail.com

UC Berkeley SOL Boalt Hal

Myron Moskovitz is author of Strategies On Appeal (CEB, 2021; digital: ceb.com; print: https://store.ceb.com/strategies-on-appeal-2) and Winning An Appeal (5th ed., Carolina Academic Press). He is Director of Moskovitz Appellate Team, a group of former appellate judges and appellate research attorneys who handle and consult on appeals and writs. See MoskovitzAppellateTeam.com. The Daily Journal designated Moskovitz Appellate Team as one of California's top boutique law firms. Myron can be contacted at myronmoskovitz@gmail.com or (510) 384-0354. Prior "Moskovitz On Appeal" columns can be found at http://moskovitzappellateteam.com/blog.

See more...

Oral arguments before the California Supreme Court
A man speaks before the California Supreme Court, Dec. 7, 2016. From left, Justice Carol Corrigan, former Justice Kathryn Werdegar, Justice Ming Chin and Justice Goodwin Liu.

MOSKOVITZ ON APPEALS

A few months ago, I consulted on an upcoming Supreme Court argument -- by serving on a moot court panel for one of the advocates.

The case turned on whether a county had erred in approving an environmental impact report (EIR). The challenger contended that the report failed to explain well enough how certain airborne toxins correlated with certain ailments that p...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up