| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
B277750
|
Modification: Siry Investment v. Farkhondehpour
Imposition of lesser sanctions is 'not an absolute prerequisite' to imposition of terminating sanctions for violation of court order. |
Civil Procedure |
|
B. Hoffstadt | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
B294016
|
City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla
Legislature did not provide clear intent that Voter Participation Rights Act applies to charter cities. |
Constitutional Law |
|
D. Perluss | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
E071660
|
People v. Mitchell
Application of Evidence Code Section 1360 is not limited based upon the specific offenses enumerated in Section 1360(c). |
statutory_interpretation |
|
R. Fields | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
G058062
|
In re B.E.
Reunification bypass provision intended for parents who refuse to participate in court-ordered drug treatment program, not parents who relapse on road to recovery. |
Dependency |
|
R. Ikola | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
A155613
|
City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Natera Inc.
Plaintiffs failed to allege a securities fraud cause action in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1993. |
Securities |
|
M. Miller | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
A154694
|
Uber Technologies Pricing Cases
Uber was exempt from Unfair Practices Act claim because California Public Utilities Commission had jurisdiction over it. |
statutory_interpretation |
|
K. Banke | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
D074374
|
Citizens for Responsible etc. v. Department of Transportation
Streets and Highways Code Section 103 did not exempt Caltrans from California Environmental Quality Act's requirements. |
statutory_interpretation |
|
P. Benke | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
C085867
|
Reeve v. Meleyco
Referral fee agreement between attorneys was unenforceable because the client did not provide written consent. |
Contracts |
|
L. Mauro | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
17-56006
|
Tresona Multimedia v. Burbank High School Vocal Music Association
Defense of fair use applied due to limited and transformative nature of the use and work's nonprofit educational purposes. |
Copyright |
|
K. Wardlaw | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
18-16805
|
Citizens For Free Speech v. County of Alameda
District court was correct in invoking abstention under 'Younger v. Harris' doctrine because abatement proceeding met required elements. |
Civil Rights |
|
L. Adelman | Mar. 25, 2020 |
|
18-776
|
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr
INA's Limited Review Provision's phrase 'questions of law' includes the application of legal standard to undisputed or established facts. |
Immigration |
|
S. Breyer | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
18-877
|
Allen v. Cooper
The Intellectual Property Clause did not allow Congress to abrogate sovereign immunity from copyright suits. |
Copyright |
|
E. Kagan | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
18-6135
|
Kahler v. Kansas
Due process did not require Kansas to adopt moral incapacity test because insanity defenses are state governance and no particular version is required. |
statutory_interpretation |
|
E. Kagan | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
18-1171
|
Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African-American Owned Media
A 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 plaintiff continuously bears the burden of showing that plaintiff's race was a 'but-for' cause of its injury. |
Torts |
|
N. Gorsuch | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
19-5421
|
Davis v. U.S.
Courts may conduct a plain error review of unpreserved arguments, including unpreserved factual arguments. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
P. Curiam (USSC) | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
19-633
|
Avery v. US
Order |
|
Mar. 24, 2020 | ||
|
B294704
|
In re Andrew M.
Incarcerated parents may waive their appearance, but juvenile court may only adjudicate petition if that parent has representation at the hearing. |
Juveniles |
|
H. Dhanidina | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
D074755
|
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. ProjectCBD.com
Trial court erred in denying defendant's anti-SLAPP motion because plaintiffs had not demonstrated a probability in prevailing on their libel claim. |
Anti-SLAPP |
|
C. Aaron | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
S239488
|
People v. Bullard
Penal Code Section 10851 violations do not bar Proposition 47 relief merely because one cannot prove intent to indefinitely deprive the owner. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
L. Kruger | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
19-6113
|
Bazan v. U.S.
Order |
|
Mar. 24, 2020 | ||
|
19-6431
|
Bazan v. U.S.
Order |
|
Mar. 24, 2020 | ||
|
18-60029
|
In Re Brown
Funds that were fraudulently transferred by the debtor remained property of the converted estate under 11 U.S.C. Section 348(f)(1)(A). |
Bankruptcy |
|
M. Schroeder | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
19-55241
|
Walker v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest
The district court did not err in granting class certification order because the district court's reliance in 'Briseno' did not cause legal error. |
Civil Procedure |
|
R. Tallman | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
18-55020
|
Winter v. Gardens Regional Hospital and Medical Center
To be actionable under the False Claim Act, clinical judgments and opinions do not require objective falsehood. |
Torts |
|
M. Bennett | Mar. 24, 2020 |
|
18-10211
|
U.S. v. Walker
Corporal Injury to Spouse or Cohabitant convictions qualify as violent felonies under Armed Career Criminal Act. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Bybee | Mar. 23, 2020 |
|
17-50338
|
U.S. v. Miller
Jury charge instructing wire fraud as 'deceive or cheat' instead of 'deceive and cheat' was erroneous but harmless. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Rakoff | Mar. 23, 2020 |
|
18-35592
|
Walker v. Fred Meyer Inc.
FCRA's standalone disclosure requirement does not allow for inclusion of any extraneous information in the consumer report disclosure. |
Consumer Law |
|
A. Tashima | Mar. 23, 2020 |
|
17-15874
|
Smith v. Davis
Petitioner failed to exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing his rights; thus, equitable tolling of statute of limitations did not apply. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
C. Bea | Mar. 23, 2020 |
|
D074161
|
Fidelity National Home Warranty Company Cases
Trial court erred in failing to exclude 135 days from dismissal period following assignment of coordination motion judge to rule on petition to coordinate. |
Civil Procedure |
|
C. Aaron | Mar. 23, 2020 |
|
G057564
|
People v. Cruz
Senate Bill 1437 was constitutional and did not amend Proposition 7 because it neither added to nor took away from Proposition 7's initiatives. |
statutory_interpretation |
|
R. Ikola | Mar. 20, 2020 |