| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
B342355
|
Hu v. XPO Logistics, LLC
Property broker owed no duty to carrier's injured employee because the broker was not a licensed carrier and did not exercise control over the carrier's transport of the cargo. |
Torts |
|
B. Hoffstadt | Jan. 21, 2026 |
|
B324360
|
Modification: Towns v. Hyundai Motor America
Under Song-Beverly Act, only vehicle's buyer--not driver or responsible party--has standing to pursue a claim. |
Consumer Law, Civil Procedure |
|
H. Zukin | Jan. 21, 2026 |
|
24-808
|
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton
Requirement that motions to vacate judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure be filed in a reasonable time applies to motions alleging the judgment is void. |
Civil Procedure |
|
S. Alito | Jan. 21, 2026 |
|
24-482
|
Ellingburg v. U.S.
Because restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act constitutes criminal punishment, its retroactive application to offenses committed before its enactment violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
B. Kavanaugh | Jan. 21, 2026 |
|
24-440
|
Berk v. Choy
When state's affidavit-of-merit requirement for medical malpractice actions conflicted with federal rules regulating the same civil procedure, federal rules prevailed. |
Civil Procedure |
|
A. Barrett | Jan. 21, 2026 |
|
25-5557
|
Howell v. Circuit Court of Indiana
Order |
|
Jan. 21, 2026 | ||
|
23-4420
|
Guevara-Serrano v. Bondi
Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding that asylum petitioner's failure to report beatings to the Honduran government precluded relief, where reporting would have been futile and dangerous. |
Immigration |
|
M. Schroeder | Jan. 21, 2026 |
|
24-2625
|
In re: Akhlaghpour
Bankruptcy court's order granting leave to sue was not a modification of state court decision arising from an improperly filed state court action, so the *Rooker-Feldman* doctrine did not apply. |
Bankruptcy, Civil Procedure |
|
S. Rash | Jan. 21, 2026 |
|
B343556
|
People v. Craig
Criminal defendant had statutory right to appeal where superior court denied his unauthorized petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1 on the merits rather than merely not responding. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Segal | Jan. 20, 2026 |
|
A172245
|
Berkeley People's Alliance v. City of Berkeley
Order |
|
Jan. 20, 2026 | ||
|
B333692
|
People v. Rodriguez
In denying defendant's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing request, trial court properly relied on preliminary hearing transcripts to frame defendant's theory of conviction despite transcript's possible inadmissibility. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence |
|
M. Stratton | Jan. 20, 2026 |
|
25-2884
|
Diamond Sands Apartments LLC v. Clark County Nevada
Fine imposed on property owner for tenants' continuing violations of county's short-term rental ordinances was not excessive for Eighth Amendment purposes. |
Constitutional Law |
|
K. Schreier | Jan. 20, 2026 |
|
C102070
|
City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon
Environmental Impact Report's water analysis for development project was sufficient for Environmental Quality Act purposes where it showed water was reasonably likely to be available from an identified source. |
Environmental Law, Water Rights |
|
J. Renner | Jan. 16, 2026 |
|
E085766
|
The Merchant of Tennis v. Superior Court (Garcia)
Rescission laws required a curative notice to inform putative class members that rescinding their individual settlement agreements may obligate them to return settlement consideration if the employer ultimately prevailed. |
Remedies, Employment Law |
|
D. Miller | Jan. 16, 2026 |
|
B347381
|
Microsoft Corp. v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles)
LAPD nondisclosure order prohibiting Microsoft from notifying USC of the existence of warrant did not violate the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) or Microsoft's First Amendment rights. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
A. Tamzarian | Jan. 16, 2026 |
|
A169408
|
Modification: Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco
San Francisco's methods for calculating employee disability retirement benefits did not discriminate based on age of entry into the City's retirement system. |
Employment Discrimination |
|
T. Brown | Jan. 16, 2026 |
|
S282937
|
City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (Law Foundation of Silicon Valley)
California Public Records Act permits declaratory relief addressing past violations when such relief is likely to affect future public-records requests or agency conduct. |
Public Records Act |
|
P. Guerrero | Jan. 16, 2026 |
|
A167545
|
People v. McCowan
California's firearm licensing scheme and Penal Code sections 25850, 30605, and 32310 are not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as interpreted in *Bruen*. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
M. Langhorne Wilson | Jan. 15, 2026 |
|
B337590
|
People v. Washington
Parolee was still eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because he had been in custody serving a term that included a legally invalid enhancement when identified as eligible for relief. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
G. Weingart | Jan. 15, 2026 |
|
A170701
|
Modification: In re Thai
Limiting types of prison conduct credits available to advance youth parole eligibility date while allowing non-youthful offenders to utilize other types of credits did not violate equal protection. |
Criminal Law and Procedure, Constitutional Law |
|
J. Streeter | Jan. 15, 2026 |
|
B338584
|
Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Admin. Services
Regardless of whether the underlying employment relationship involved interstate commerce, trial court properly dismissed class claims where employment arbitration agreement expressly consented to Federal Arbitration Act governance. |
Arbitration |
|
V. Viramontes | Jan. 15, 2026 |
|
24-5774
|
Barrett v. U.S.
Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both sections 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j)(1) for a single act that violates both provisions; one act violating both sections may yield only one conviction. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
K. Jackson | Jan. 15, 2026 |
|
24-624
|
Case v. Montana
The test for an emergency aid warrantless entry into a home is whether officers have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. |
Constitutional Law |
|
E. Kagan | Jan. 15, 2026 |
|
24-568
|
Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections
Candidate for office had standing to challenge Illinois law requiring counting of mail-in ballots postmarked or certified by, but received after, election day. |
Civil Procedure |
|
J. Roberts | Jan. 15, 2026 |
|
24-5786
|
Friends of Animals v. Burgum
Bureau of Land Management did not act improperly by approving contract for a new off-range corral to hold wild horses and burros in accordance with its standards. |
Animal Law, Environmental Law |
|
R. Tallman | Jan. 15, 2026 |
|
F087827
|
Modification: People v. Jimenez
Defendant was erroneously sentenced under the general vandalism statute, where a more specific, relevant statute concerning vandalism of jail property applied. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
R. Peña | Jan. 14, 2026 |
|
23-3826
|
Howard v. Republican National Committee
Telephone Consumer Protection Act did not prohibit the sending of text messages containing a video file that required the user to press play to view the file. |
Consumer Law |
|
D. Collins | Jan. 14, 2026 |
|
23-435
|
U.S. v. Gomez
Unpreserved claims on appeal are reviewed only for plain error and because district court's error classifying assault with a deadly weapon as a crime of violence was not plain, the sentence was affirmed. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
H. Thomas | Jan. 14, 2026 |
|
24-6366
|
Malheur Forest Fairness Coal v. Iron Triangle, LLC
Plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead that defendant timber company had a monopoly in harvest rights and other related markets for contracts with the U.S. Forest Service. |
Antitrust |
|
M. Smith | Jan. 14, 2026 |
|
B341157
|
Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP
Law firm was entitled to its full contingency fee where client voluntarily ratified an allegedly unauthorized settlement by subsequently agreeing to and accepting its benefits. |
Attorneys |
|
B. Hoffstadt | Jan. 12, 2026 |