The Court of Appeal confirms today that when CCP says that you have to have "three judges" on the panels that hears appeals, it really means "three". Not two. Three. Even if two judges are enough to issue a judgment.
You can't have panels of two. Because you're supposed to have panels of . . . wait for it . . . three.
Three is better than two. Two is not three. It's one less. To make three, you need not one, not two, but three.
Read Justice Elia's complete opinion for more detail if you're unsure about the concept.
Some of this advanced mathematics is moot at this point, since after the Court of Appeal issued its OSC, the Appellate Division of the Santa Cruz Superior Court got the message and stopped hearing appeals with two (instead of three) judges. But just in case anyone else was thinking about cutting back, Justice Elia publishes the opinion. Making clear that . . . well, I think you get it at this point.