Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Born: September 15, 1947 Appointed: March 15, 1995, by Wilson Previous work of note: Alameda County Superior Court judge 1988-95 (Deukmejian). Alameda County Municipal Court judge 1985-88 (Deukmejian). Law degree: University of San Francisco School of Law (1974) Notable opinions: People v. Woods, 61 Cal.App.4th 246, Trans-Action Commercial Investors v. Firmaterr, 60 Cal.App.4th 352, Jones v. Kmart, 50 Cal.App.4th 1898 A lot of judges talk about judicial restraint and respecting precedent. Joanne Parrilli actually walks the walk. Parrilli is one of those judges who genuinely goes where the law takes her, even if it’s somewhere she doesn’t personally like. She may criticize the law, or suggest that the Legislature or the California Supreme Court reexamine it, but she won’t ignore it. Maybe that’s why in her 31/2 years on the court, Parrilli has yet to see a single ruling depublished or reversed by the Supreme Court. A great example is People v. Woods, 61 Cal.App.4th 246, in which Parrilli reluctantly affirmed a trial judge’s finding that police had used a pretext to conduct a warrantless search. If the California Supreme Court precedent the defense had relied on was no longer viable, Parrilli wrote, it was up to that court to say so. “We do not believe it is our office to do so on their behalf,” she wrote. Parrilli also disappointed the powerful California Judicial Council by ruling in Trans-Action Commercial Investors v. Firmaterr, 60 Cal.App.4th 352, that a rule of court giving judges broad sanctioning powers was inconsistent with statute. Despite the Judicial Council’s urging, the Supreme Court declined to second-guess Parrilli’s decision. Parrilli has been very active in judicial administration, serving as a member of the Judicial Council, the executive committee of the California Judges Association, and as a special master for the Commission on Judicial Performance. Parrilli’s Division Three is the second slowest panel on the First District for processing appeals. The median time from briefing to decision in civil appeals was 202 days, criminal 142.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.