Search

The thrust of the "Restatement" which is the centerpiece of this issue of Law and Contemporary Problems-synthesizing the complex body of case law into an orderly scheme of appeal, certified appeal, and restricted interlocutory appealsurely moves in the right direction. Yet the experience of state appellate courts suggests consideration of a more open-ended system of interlocutory review, one that would give the United States courts of appeal broad discretionary power to issue writs or orders to supervise trial court action. Flexible schemes of civil appellate review have been successfully implemented in some jurisdictions; their workings are discussed elsewhere.1 In California, a nominally restricted and formal procedure has in fact evolved into a flexible scheme of interlocutory review: a formerly rigorous final judgment requirement has been eroded by a few legislative exceptions and, more significantly, by judicial decisions gradually broadening the prerogative writs to permit discretionary review of interlocutory orders. Resort to writ practice for interlocutory review is particularly inviting to the appellate courts of California because nonpriority civil appeals are heavily backlogged-time lapse between completion of briefing and calendaring for hearing is two years or more in some districts. Appellate motivation to tolerate the growth of writ practice may be influenced also by the circumstance that, although California Constitution article 6, section 14 requires that appellate decisions "that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated," a writ proceeding does not become a "cause" unless an alternative writ is issued placing the matter on calendar for argument. Thus, the appellate courts economize their labor by writing no opinions where writs are summarily denied. This emerging system of interlocutory review would be more serviceable if it were articulated in statutes or rules. Yet in its half-concealed state it shows that