Exline v. Smith
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court (Cal. 2005)
- Sackett v. Santilli (Wash. 2002)
- Sackett v. Santilli (Wash. 2002)
- Rincon EV Realty LLC v. CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)
- Hawkins v. Superior Court (Cal. 1978)
- Manchin v. Browning (W. Va. 1982)
- People v. Cannon (Cal. 2025)
- TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (Cal. 2024)
- Treo @ Kettner Homeowners Ass'n v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)
- Ting v. AT & T (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2002)
- Shute v. Frohmiller (Ariz. 1939)
- Guardian Depositors Corp. v. Darmstaetter (Mich. 1939)
- Duran v. Pickwick Stages System (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
- Hertter v. Addis (Cal. Ct. App. 1928)
- People v. Metropolitan Surety Co. (Cal. 1912)
- Reagan v. United States (Court of Claims 1900)
- Tabor v. Cook (Mich. 1867)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Bryan, J., concurred.
The third section of the first article of the Constitution provides that “ the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate for ever; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law.”
The fifth chapter of the Act concerning Civil Cases, (page 55, Revised Statutes,) after providing the numerous cases in which a jury shall be deemed waived, adds: “The Court may prescribe by rule what shall be deemed a waiver in other cases.”
The second subdivision of the third section thus quoted is directly in conflict with the third section of the Constitution of California. The Constitution has imposed the power as well as the necessity upon the Legislature, of determining in what cases a jury trial may be waived, which cannot be transferred or delegated to any other department of
The right of trial by jury is too sacred in its character to be frittered away or committed to the uncontrolled caprice of every judge or magistrate in the State. Besides, the power to “ prescribe by law” is legislative, and cannot be conferred on judicial officers, as was decided by us in “ Burgoyne v. Supervisors.”
Prom these reasons it follows, that, inasmuch as the appellant was refused a jury trial, in consequence of a rule of Court and not on account of any statute, that the Court below erred.
Judgment reversed with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.