# Justice Kenneth R. Yegan *legal · Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District retention · judge* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2025-10-06 to 2026-10-19. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 12 sources) Kenneth R. Yegan has sat on Division Six of the Second District since 1990, after seven years as a Ventura County trial judge and earlier work as a deputy public defender [Justice Kenneth R. Yegan (court biography)]. From October 2024 to October 2026 he wrote 33 published opinions, 18 of them criminal appeals, plus three separate opinions [Published opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. His recent majority opinions are compact and rule-bound: he enforced forfeiture against a defendant who did not request a modified jury instruction [P. v. Ammons (B343669, 2026-09-16; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan)] and held an insurer could rescind a jet policy because embezzled purchase money was a material fact it never had to ask about [Passport 420, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. (B343113, 2026-10-01; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan)]. His separate opinions are more results-driven and, in the sample, all favor the prosecution's side: he dissented from accepting a concession that freed a 31-year-old who admitted two murders at 15 [In re J.C. (B345707)], dissented in October 2026 to stop what he called judge shopping on a strike-dismissal motion [P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan)], and wrote in 2025 that the jury-selection statute's automatic-prejudice rule is unconstitutional [P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody)]. Reform California and blogger Daniel Faigin recommend retention; neither cites his opinions [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County; November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices]. ### Record highlights - Oct 2024 to Oct 2026: 33 published authored opinions and 3 published separate opinions (2 dissents, 1 concurrence); 18 of the 33 are criminal appeals. Published opinions only; some entries are modified versions of the same case. [Published opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Oct 2026, People v. Perkins: dissented from affirming a sentence after a second judge granted a strike-dismissal motion a first judge had denied; would have excused the People's forfeiture and sent the case back to the first judge. [P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan)] - Oct 2026, Passport 420 v. Starr Indemnity: wrote the unanimous opinion reversing a roughly $21.6 million verdict (including $15 million punitive) against an insurer, holding Avenatti's use of embezzled funds to buy the jet was a material fact the company concealed. [Passport 420, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. (B343113, 2026-10-01; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan)] - Sept 2026, People v. Ammons: wrote the unanimous opinion affirming an attempted-murder conviction, finding the intoxication instruction adequate and the clarification claim forfeited. [P. v. Ammons (B343669, 2026-09-16; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan)] - Sept 2026, In re J.C.: dissented from reversing a juvenile's transfer to adult court; would have rejected the Attorney General's concession of error. [In re J.C. (B345707)] - Aug 2026, People v. Campbell: on remand from the Supreme Court, which had disapproved the reasoning of his panel's 2024 ruling, again affirmed denial of a resentencing petition on different grounds. [People v. Campbell (B334456)] - Apr 2026, Marriage of Bowman: held a family court may weigh ability to pay when awarding fees under a settlement agreement's prevailing-party clause. [In re Marriage of Bowman (B331924)] - Oct 2025, People v. Garcia: joined an opinion disapproving the division's own Uriostegui decision and concurred separately that Code Civ. Proc. § 231.7's 'deemed prejudicial' clause is unconstitutional. [P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody)] ### Stated positions - Calls himself 'in the Cardozo and Pound camp' and rejects mechanical application of rules that lead to unjust results (Oct 2026). [P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan)] - Accepts the Legislature's power to set the juvenile-transfer age line, but says releasing an admitted double murderer 'potentially puts the community at risk and is unacceptable' (Sept 2026). [In re J.C. (B345707)] - Says the Legislature cannot amend the Constitution by statute, so a statutory rule that jury-selection error is automatically prejudicial is unconstitutional (Oct 2025). [P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody)] ### Where sources disagree - Faigin attributes to People v. Campbell a critique of the Legislature's 'constant tinkering' with sentencing law; the 2026 Campbell opinion in this collection contains no such language. [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices; People v. Campbell (B334456)] ### Gaps - No source argues against retention on the merits; the only criticism is second-hand. - No bar or legal-community evaluation, and no interviews or statements outside his opinions. - Unpublished opinions, which are most of his output, are not collected; the census counts published opinions only. - Little on his record before 2025 despite 36 years on the court; two Daily Journal profiles and a 2026 tax opinion (Disney v. Santa Barbara) were blocked. ### Arguments for / praise - Recommends retention without stating reasons; Yegan is one of three Second District justices it backs out of 33. — *Reform California* [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County] - Recommends retention, finding nothing disqualifying and noting long service and no reported discipline (drawing on AI-generated summaries). — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] ### Arguments against / criticism - Reports, citing Google AI, that his emphasis on efficiency and finality draws pushback from criminal defense advocates; Faigin still recommends retention. — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Five published Division Six texts, September 2025 to October 2026, chosen by a fixed rule applied to every justice: all of his separate opinions from the court's Oct 2024 to Oct 2026 published listings (three: dissents in Perkins [S1] and In re J.C. [S4], a concurrence in Garcia [S5]), then his two most recent authored opinions (Passport 420 v. Starr, insurance [S2]; People v. Ammons, criminal [S3]). Four of five are criminal or juvenile. For S1, S4 and S5 the text read is his own separate opinion only (about 4,400, 3,900 and 7,300 characters), without the majority's words. No speeches, interviews, or unscripted speech. The sample shows two modes. His majority opinions are conventional and rule-bound: he reads instructions as a whole and enforces forfeiture against a defendant who did not request a clarification [S3], and reads the Insurance Code's disclosure sections together to hold materiality does not depend on what the insurer asked [S2]. His separate opinions are openly results-conscious: he rejects 'mechanical jurisprudence', places himself 'in the Cardozo and Pound camp', and would reach the merits despite the People's forfeiture [S1]; he would refuse an Attorney General concession of error and seek briefing on issues no party raised [S4]; and he would hold a statutory automatic-prejudice rule unconstitutional [S5]. He accepts legislative line-drawing in principle while objecting to particular results [S4]. In all three separate opinions he favors the prosecution's side (finality, community safety, harmless error); the sample has no separate opinion in a civil case. Articulation: **strong**. Prepared texts only. Majority opinions are short, organized, and state the holding first [S2, S3]; S2 works through the statutes, materiality cases, and the malevolent-agent exception with comparisons to Stueve Bros. and Park. Separate opinions are brief, personal, and pointed, built on precedent he names (Sons, Alberto) and on jurisprudential authority (Pound, Cardozo) [S1]. Weaknesses: the S5 concurrence asserts unconstitutionality in a few sentences, relying on his own earlier concurrence rather than argument; the S4 dissent proposes a remedy (section 1800 commitment) while expressing 'no opinion' on whether it is viable. Consistency: **adequate**. Across the three separate opinions (Oct 2025 to Oct 2026) the stance is steady: skepticism of procedural or statutory rules that favor defendants, and willingness to look past party concessions. One tension a reader should weigh: in S3 he enforces forfeiture against a defendant, while in S1 he would excuse the People's forfeiture under the 'public interest or the due administration of justice' exception, which he cites from Witkin. He explains the difference as one of institutional stakes (judge shopping), not of party. No change of position over time is shown. - Forfeiture and the orderly administration of justice: Forfeiture should yield where a second trial judge effectively overrules a first; he would reach the merits and return the case to the first judge [S1]. In his own majority he enforces forfeiture against a defendant who did not request a modified instruction [S3]. - "The judge shopping lamp has now been lit." [P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan)] (2026-10-19) - "But just because it had the power to do so does not mean that it should have done so." [P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan)] (2026-10-19) - "it was appellant’s responsibility to request any modifications or clarifications he required" [P. v. Ammons (B343669, 2026-09-16; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan)] (2026-09-16) - Juvenile transfer and delayed prosecutions: Accepts the Legislature's age line in the typical case but would not apply it to release an adult who admitted two murders committed at 15; would reject the Attorney General's concession and seek more briefing [S4]. - "The Legislature has the power and right to draw this line." [In re J.C. (B345707)] (2026-09-02) - "In my opinion, outright release from the juvenile court potentially puts the community at risk and is unacceptable." [In re J.C. (B345707)] (2026-09-02) - "While the attorney general has conceded error, I would not accept this concession." [In re J.C. (B345707)] (2026-09-02) - Jury-selection statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 231.7): The statute's rule that error 'shall be deemed prejudicial' is unconstitutional; he agrees with the District Attorney amicus that any error was harmless [S5]. - "The Legislature has neither the right, nor the power, to amend the California Constitution by statute." [P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody)] (2025-10-06) - "Amicus curiae is correct." [P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody)] (2025-10-06) - Insurance disclosure: An applicant must disclose material facts even if never asked; use of embezzled funds to buy an insured jet was material as a matter of law, entitling the insurer to rescind [S2]. - "We hold that, if an applicant for insurance fails to disclose a material fact, the insurer may rescind the policy when it learns the truth" [Passport 420, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. (B343113, 2026-10-01; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan)] (2026-10-01) - "As a matter of law, no reasonable insurer would insure property against government seizure if it knew the property was acquired with embezzled funds." [Passport 420, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. (B343113, 2026-10-01; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan)] (2026-10-01) Limitations: Five texts; published opinions are a minority of a justice's work, and most of his decisions are unpublished. Three of the five are separate opinions, which by design over-represent disagreement; his 33 published authored opinions in the period (per the census listing) are represented by only two. Majority opinions are joined by colleagues. Nothing here covers his record before September 2025, civil separate opinions, or unscripted speech. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-20** — Dissent in P. v. Perkins (B345690) listed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-19** — Published: P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-10-19** — Court of Appeal affirmed; Yegan dissented (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-10-01** — Authored Passport 420 v. Starr Indemnity (B343113) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-01** — Published: Passport 420, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. (B343113, 2026-10-01; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-10-01** — Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Passport (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-09-16** — Published: P. v. Ammons (B343669, 2026-09-16; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-09-16** — Court of Appeal affirmed the attempted-murder conviction (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2026-09-02** — Published: In re J.C. (B345707) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-09-02** — Opinion and dissent filed in In re J.C. (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-09-02** — Dissent in In re J.C. (B345707) listed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-09-01** — Opinion certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-08-03** — Published: People v. Campbell (B334456) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-08-03** — Opinion filed on transfer from Supreme Court (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-04-03** — Published: In re Marriage of Bowman (B331924) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-04-03** — Published opinion filed in Marriage of Bowman (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2026-01-30** — Published: Disney Platform Distribution, Inc. v. City of Santa Barbara (B342211), opinion on rehearing (FindLaw (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six)) - **2025-10-06** — Published: P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-10-06** — Opinion filed affirming the convictions, with concurrences by Yegan and Cody (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-10-06** — Concurrence in P. v. Garcia (B330884) listed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-04** — Second trial judge granted the renewed Romero motion at sentencing (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2025-03-25** — Juvenile court granted transfer to criminal court (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2025-01** — First trial judge denied the Romero motion (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2024-12-18** — Supreme Court granted review in People v. SanMiguel (S287786), per Yegan's citation (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **2024-12-11** — Earlier unpublished affirmance filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) - **2019-04-10** — U.S. Treasury seized the aircraft; Avenatti indicted the same day (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6) - **1990** — Became Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) - **1983** — Became Ventura County Municipal Court judge (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) ## Sources ### P. v. Perkins (B345690, 2026-10-20; opinion by Tari L. Cody; dissent by Kenneth R. Yegan) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2026-10-19 · stance: not_applicable - Published Division Six decision affirming a San Luis Obispo sentence after a second trial judge granted a renewed Romero motion a first judge had denied. Justice Cody's majority holds the People forfeited the objection and that striking the strike was within discretion. Justice Yegan dissents: the second judge should have sent the motion back to the first, and the forfeiture rule should yield to the orderly administration of justice. - Majority (Cody, P.J., joined by Baltodano, J.): the People never objected to the second judge hearing the renewed Romero motion, so the claim is forfeited; the court declines to excuse the forfeiture. - Majority: dismissing the burglary strike was not an abuse of discretion given the strike's nature, the defendant's age at the time, and his background. - Yegan dissent: 'The judge shopping lamp has now been lit'; one superior court judge should not 'overrule' another (citing People v. Sons and In re Alberto). - Yegan dissent rejects 'mechanical jurisprudence', invokes Pound and Cardozo, and would reverse, vacate the sentence, let the defendant withdraw his plea, and return the case to the first judge. ### November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices - cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) · voter guide · published 2026-10-07 · stance: support - Blogger Daniel Faigin's ballot analysis recommends retaining Yegan, finding nothing disqualifying. His discussion of each justice is drawn explicitly from 'Google AI' output, not from his own reading of the record. - Conclusion: Retain (Yes): 'None of this is a reason for disqualification.' - Reports, from Google AI, that Yegan has no ethical scandals or discipline and has nearly 43 years of judicial service. - Says Yegan is known for opinions criticizing the Legislature's 'constant tinkering' with sentencing laws, attributing this to a 'People v. Campbell'. - Mentions his long work as a volunteer ski instructor for disabled athletes and veterans. ### Passport 420, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. (B343113, 2026-10-01; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2026-10-01 · stance: not_applicable - Justice Yegan's opinion for a unanimous panel reversing a jury verdict of about $21.6 million (including $15 million in punitive damages) against Starr Indemnity, which insured a jet co-owned through Michael Avenatti's company. It holds that an applicant must disclose material facts even if the insurer never asks, that Avenatti's use of embezzled money to buy the jet was material as a matter of law, and that his knowledge is imputed to the company. - Insurance Code sections 332, 334 and 336: materiality does not depend on whether the insurer asked or investigated; the test is the probable effect on the underwriting decision. - As a matter of law, no reasonable insurer would cover government seizure of property it knew was bought with embezzled funds, so Starr could rescind. - The 'malevolent agent' exception does not apply because Avenatti's acts benefited the company, at least initially, and Starr dealt in good faith. - A footnote calls Avenatti 'a master deceiver' and lists Parrish, the company, and the insurer all as his victims; the court declines to opine on the trial court's criticism of Starr's 'lackadaisical' underwriting. ### P. v. Ammons (B343669, 2026-09-16; opinion by Kenneth R. Yegan) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2026-09-16 · stance: not_applicable - Justice Yegan's opinion for a unanimous panel affirming an attempted-murder conviction for a Pismo Beach driver who tried to shoot a police officer. It holds the voluntary-intoxication instruction, read with the other instructions, let jurors weigh intoxication on premeditation; the defendant forfeited any clarification by not asking; and counsel's failure to object caused no prejudice. - Instructions are read as a whole: following People v. Castillo, no reasonable juror would think intoxication counted for intent to kill but not for premeditation. - A voluntary-intoxication instruction is a pinpoint instruction, so the defense had to request any modification; failure to do so forfeits the claim. - No ineffective-assistance prejudice: a jury could not rationally find the defendant sober enough to intend to kill yet too drunk to premeditate, especially after seeing the body-camera video. - A footnote remarks that the defendant's backward-loaded magazine 'is the only reason' the officer was not killed. ### In re J.C. (B345707) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six · court opinion · published 2026-09-02 · stance: not_applicable - Yegan dissented from a published Division Six decision reversing the transfer to adult court of J.C., who at 15 committed two gang murders, was indicted at 19, and is now 31. Yegan argued that accepting the Attorney General's concession of error 'may work a miscarriage of justice' because J.C. is too old for juvenile treatment and will be released. - Majority (Cody, P.J., joined by Baltodano, J.) held that Welf. & Inst. Code § 707(a)(2), as amended by SB 1391, barred the transfer because J.C. was apprehended while still within juvenile jurisdiction; the People conceded the error. - Yegan's dissent: the Legislature may draw the age-15 line, and he applied it himself in an earlier case, but outright release of a 31-year-old who admitted two murders 'potentially puts the community at risk and is unacceptable.' - Yegan would have rejected the Attorney General's concession, sought briefing from the Ventura District Attorney on the plea bargain's 'escape hatch', and flagged a possible extended commitment under § 1800. - The dissent rests on policy and public-safety concerns more than on a competing reading of the statute; it does not dispute the majority's statutory reading. ### People v. Campbell (B334456) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six · court opinion · published 2026-08-03 · stance: not_applicable - On remand from the California Supreme Court, Yegan wrote for Division Six affirming the summary denial of Sidney Campbell's SB 1437 resentencing petition, holding that his jury instructions did not allow a conviction on imputed malice. The panel's earlier unpublished 2024 affirmance had relied on a line of cases the Supreme Court later disapproved in People v. Lopez (2026). - Procedural history: the panel first affirmed in Dec. 2024 on the Berry-Vierwinden rationale; the Supreme Court granted review, disapproved that line in Lopez, and transferred the case back. - On reconsideration, the court distinguishes Langi, Powell, and Maldonado because the only charged crime was murder, so the jury had to find Campbell personally harbored malice. - Also rejects claims of improper judicial factfinding at the prima facie stage and reliance on firearm findings (distinguishing Offley). - Filed Aug. 3, 2026 and certified for publication Sept. 1, 2026. ### In re Marriage of Bowman (B331924) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six · court opinion · published 2026-04-03 · stance: not_applicable - Writing for a unanimous Division Six panel, Yegan held that a family court setting fees under a marital settlement agreement's prevailing-party clause may still weigh the losing spouse's ability to pay under Family Code §§ 2030 and 2032, not only the Civil Code § 1717 lodestar. The court affirmed a $12,500 award against a $49,000 request. - Holding: an MSA fee clause gives an alternative basis for fees but does not strip the family court of its equitable discretion. - Distinguishes Walker v. Ticor Title (2012) as not a dissolution case and reads Marriage of Sherman (1984) as permitting, not requiring, a pure § 1717 award. - Affirmed the trial court's finding that 'this is a limited asset case that has been over litigated', where both parties live on Social Security. - Characteristic line: 'She forgets that the family law court is a court of fairness and equity.' ### Disney Platform Distribution, Inc. v. City of Santa Barbara (B342211), opinion on rehearing - FindLaw (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six) · court opinion · published 2026-01-30 · stance: not_applicable - ### P. v. Garcia (B330884, 2025-10-06; opinion by Gilbert, P.J.; concurring opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan and Tari L. Cody) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 · court opinion · published 2025-10-06 · stance: not_applicable - Published Division Six decision affirming robbery and carjacking convictions over a challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, the statute limiting peremptory juror challenges. Presiding Justice Gilbert's opinion refuses the Attorney General's concession of error and disapproves the division's own Uriostegui decision. Justice Yegan joins and adds a short concurrence arguing the statute's 'shall be deemed prejudicial' clause is unconstitutional. Justice Cody concurs only in the judgment. - Majority (Gilbert, P.J., joined by Yegan, J.): a trial judge need not repeat the statute's wording verbatim to satisfy section 231.7; the objection was properly overruled. - The majority disapproves People v. Uriostegui (2024), creating two conflicting opinions within one division, and notes the Attorney General 'concedes too easily.' - Yegan concurrence: agrees with the District Attorney amicus that any error was not a miscarriage of justice, and says the Legislature cannot amend the Constitution by statute, so the automatic-prejudice clause is unconstitutional. - Cody concurrence: agrees the challenge was valid but would distinguish Uriostegui rather than disapprove it. ### Justice Kenneth R. Yegan (court biography) - California Courts of Appeal, Second District · other · published undated · stance: neutral - The court's biography lists Yegan's career: Ventura County deputy public defender (1972-75), Court of Appeal staff attorney (1975-82), Ventura municipal and superior court judge (1983-90), and Associate Justice of Division Six since 1990. - On the Court of Appeal since 1990, after seven years as a Ventura County trial judge. - Began as a deputy public defender; also spent seven years as a judicial attorney at the same appellate court. - Lists three law-journal articles (1977-1982) on sentencing, self-representation (Faretta), and depublication. - Community service: volunteer ski instructor for Disabled Sports Eastern Sierra (since 2003) and wounded veterans (since 2007). ### Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County - Reform California · voter guide · published undated · stance: oppose - Reform California's Los Angeles County voter guide recommends RETAIN for Yegan, one of only three Second District justices it recommends retaining out of 33 listed. No reasons are given. - Yegan: RETAIN. - Same guide: Cody and Martinez DO NOT RETAIN; only Victoria Chavez, Frances Rothschild, and Yegan get RETAIN in the Second District. - Also recommends DO NOT RETAIN for both Supreme Court justices on the ballot. ### Published opinions by Kenneth R. Yegan, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - A ballotscope compilation of Justice Yegan's published opinions listed on courts.ca.gov from October 2024 to October 2026: 33 authored opinions and 3 separate opinions (two dissents, one concurrence). It covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished. - Authored opinions: 33; separate opinions: 3 (dissents in P. v. Perkins, 2026-10-20, and In re J.C., 2026-09-02; concurrence in P. v. Garcia, 2025-10-06). - 18 of the 33 authored entries are criminal appeals ('P. v.' captions), plus two juvenile or dependency matters (In re N.S., In re J.D.). - Civil work includes family law (Marriage of Bowman, Marriage of R.K. & G.K.), insurance (Passport 420 v. Starr), public employment and pensions (Mendoza v. Board of Retirement, Egelston v. State Personnel Bd.), local government (Nguyen v. City of L.A., Ventura Harbor Restaurant Associates v. Ventura Port Dist.), and business disputes (Pacho Limited Partnership v. Eureka Energy). - Several entries are modified or second versions of the same case (suffixes A or M), so the count of distinct cases is lower than 33. ### Are multiple resentencing laws overburdening appeal courts? - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Official Voter Information Guide: Second District Court of Appeal justices - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published undated · stance: neutral - The Secretary of State's official guide lists Kenneth R. Yegan, Associate Justice, Division Six, among the Second District justices on the Nov. 3, 2026 retention ballot. It gives names and divisions only. - Yegan is listed under Division Six with Presiding Justice Tari L. Cody. - No qualifications, ratings, or arguments appear on this page. - Reference: Court biography of Kenneth R. Yegan ### Justice's dissents question results he says law cannot support - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ## Suggested use Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.