Rutter Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rutter Group
The Rutter Group - Acronym Logo and Full Name Logo.png
Web address
Commercial? Yes
Available in English
Owner Thomson Reuters
Launched 1979-Present

The Rutter Group is a business of Thomson Reuters that publishes materials for lawyers and judges in the United States, with a particular focus on California. The Rutter Group is well known for its Rutter Group Practice Guides, which are written and edited by famous lawyers and judges.[1] The Rutter Group sponsors panel discussions regarding recent changes in the law, and the judges it hires to participate in these events must disclose the compensation they receive because it could potentially be a conflict of interests.[2]

Rutter Group treatises are frequently cited by California appellate courts as non-binding legal authorities.[3][4] Because the publications are non-binding, courts may sometimes expressly decline to follow them.[5] However, both California and federal courts have repeatedly identified Rutter treatises as "well-respected" interpretations of the law,[6] which may be cited as "redoubtable" authority.[7] The California Court of Appeal has treated the existence of conflicting Rutter Group authority as strong evidence that a legal question was unsettled and therefore not an appropriate basis for sanctioning an attorney.[8]


  1. ^ TRG. "Frequently Asked Questions". Retrieved 21 February 2013. 
  2. ^ California Fair Political Practices Commission - March 13, 1999 Letter to the Honorable Richard M. Sims III "Re: Your Request for Advice," 1992 WL 778701
  3. ^ "California Legal Research: Citing the Witkin Treatises," Santa Clara Law,
  4. ^ See, e.g., Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1525; Diepenbrock v. Brown (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 743, 746-47; J.B. Aguerre, Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 6, 13
  5. ^ See, e.g., Forte Capital Partners, LLC v. Harris Cramer, LLP (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2009, C-07-1237 EMC) 2009 WL 2175629 ("As for. . .the Rutter Group treatise, the Court notes that it is only a treatise, and not binding authority")
  6. ^ Aleman v. AirTouch Cellular (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 117 [134 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 656-57]; NOS Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., L.P. (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 3, 2003, B165005) 2003 WL 22476236; In re Marriage of Crane (Cal. Ct. App., May 31, 2006, A109921) 2006 WL 1493771; Cisneros v. Vueve (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 906, 912, fn. 4; VW Credit, Inc. v. Keuylian (Cal. Ct. App., July 26, 2012, G044632) 2012 WL 3039757, fn.6, Bennigson v. Alsdorf (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 15, 2004, B168200) 2004 WL 803616; Albert v. Satellite Management Co. (Cal. Ct. App., May 16, 2008, E042093) 2008 WL 2070605; Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc. (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2008, CV-00-20905 RMW) 2008 WL 190990; Winston v. Taylor (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 27, 2006, C048373) 2006 WL 2766211; Chen v. Union Bank of California (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 26, 2002, G030014) 2002 WL 31664335; Diamond v. County of Sacramento (E.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2006, CIV. 05-1606DFLDAD) 2006 WL 236902)
  7. ^ Allen v. Stoddard (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 807 [152 Cal.Rptr.3d 71]
  8. ^ Diepenbrock v. Brown (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 743, 749 [145 Cal.Rptr.3d 659, 663]

External links[edit]