State High Court Signals a Shift Into High Gear : Judiciary: It faces a full calendar as it prepares to hear arguments on a heavy caseload that will result in a wide range of important rulings.

After a marked decline in its output of decisions, the state Supreme Court is shifting into high gear this week to tackle a heavy load of cases that will result soon in a wide range of important rulings.

On Tuesday, the justices will begin hearing arguments on 20 cases in a four-day session in Los Angeles. Their full calendar seems to signal that the court--which has been struggling with rapid turnover within its ranks, an unyielding death-penalty backlog and other burdens--is back on track.

This week’s docket includes a review of the constitutionality of Proposition 115, the criminal justice initiative passed last June; a high-stakes battle over whether industrial polluters or their insurers must pay for toxic-waste cleanups; three significant tests of a fired worker’s rights to sue; and two of the state’s oldest, most notorious capital-murder cases.

Under new court rules, decisions are due in all the cases within 90 days after argument.

The justices’ jam-packed agenda stands in sharp contrast to the slim court calendars and abrupt drop in decisions that have caused widespread concern that they were neglecting important issues, particularly in civil cases.

In the year ending last March, only 105 opinions were issued, compared to an average of 137 annually over the previous 10 years--and 43 of those 105 decisions came in routine attorney-discipline matters.

But while hopes have been raised that the court is on the road to recovery, close observers remain cautious in predicting its future.

“This certainly suggests that the justices rolled up their sleeves and have gotten a lot done over the summer,” said Gerald F. Uelmen, dean of law at Santa Clara University. “It could indicate we are going to see a steady flow of decisions in the future. But right now, it’s really too early to tell.”

UC Berkeley law professor Stephen R. Barnett observed: “It’s possible they’re responding to the criticisms of their apparent neglect of civil cases. It will be interesting to see if the court can maintain this new civil-case productivity.”

But both Uelmen and Barnett express doubts that the court can ever function smoothly until basic procedural reforms are enacted that would ease the justices’ workload.

One such proposal would allow capital cases--which are now appealed directly to the high court--to be reviewed initially by the state appeals courts.

Barnett also believes that the new pressure on the high court to render decisions within 90 days of argument has led to some “sloppy judging” in some cases.

“The quality of opinions seems to be deteriorating,” he said.

Among other examples, Barnett cites a decision in August in which the court abruptly reversed itself and held that municipal officials need not provide the details of proposed low-rent public housing projects before seeking voter approval. Despite the importance of the issue, there was no explanation from the court of why the justices changed their minds and discarded their previous ruling, he noted.

The cases on this week’s calendar promise far-reaching effect. Among other issues, the court will review:

* Proposition 115. This hotly contested dispute pits prosecutors and crime-victims groups against defense attorneys and civil libertarians. At stake is the validity of a broad-ranging initiative that tries to reduce delay in the criminal process and limits defendants’ rights to those mandated by the federal Constitution.

Opponents contend that the measure conflicts with state constitutional requirements that initiatives be limited to a single subject. They say it is so sweeping it amounts to a revision--rather than an amendment--to the Constitution and thus may not be enacted by initiative. If the state high court upholds the initiative, foes said in briefs to the court, it will be ordering its “own substantial demise” as the ultimate arbiter of state constitutional rights.

Lawyers for the state attorney general, defending the measure, reply that all its provisions meet the test of being reasonably germane to its purpose of strengthening the rights of actual and potential crime victims. Nor are the changes required by the initiative so extensive that they amount to a revision of the Constitution, the state attorneys say.

* Employee Rights. Three cases on the docket could provide the most important rulings in California labor law since the justices’ 1988 decision sharply limiting the damages that workers may obtain for wrongful dismissal.

Under review in one case is a state appellate court ruling that allowed two Los Angeles women, who charged that they were fired for refusing sexual favors, to sue for sex discrimination without first resorting to what the court called the “largely ineffectual” procedures of the state’s civil rights agency.

Business groups warn that the ruling could open the way for unjustified damage awards and some churches say they could even be exposed to sex discrimination suits for having all-male clergy. Civil liberties and women’s groups counter that the ruling provides a necessary deterrent to discrimination in the workplace.

Also under review is the question of whether a government worker fired for “whistle-blowing” can claim damages for civil rights violations or is limited to workers compensation benefits. A third case tests whether the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission can award compensatory damages for job discrimination by employers.

* Pollution Costs. In a case with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, the court will consider whether the cost of government-ordered toxic waste cleanups must be paid by industrial polluters or by their insurers. State officials say that if polluters are not covered by their insurance, they will be discouraged from voluntary cleanups. Insurers counter that they will be financially devasted unless their liability is limited.

* Death Penalty. Two of the oldest capital cases since California reinstated the death penalty 13 years ago are back. They will be heard by a high court that is markedly more willing to uphold death sentences than its predecessor under former Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird.

The Bird Court in 1985 upheld the conviction but reversed the death penalty for Theodore Francis Frank for the 1978 torture-murder of a 2-year-old Camarillo girl. The ruling was cited by opponents in the successful campaign against the retention of Bird in the 1986 election. At retrial one year later, Frank once again was sentenced to death.

In an ironic contrast, the conviction and death sentence of Stevie Lamar Fields for the rape-murder of a USC librarian in 1978 was one of only four capital judgments upheld by the Bird Court. Now, Fields is contending that his trial lawyer failed to adequately seek evidence that could have spared Fields’ life.