| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
15-1424
|
In re GACN, Inc.
Litigation stemming from dispute regarding insurance contract does not constitute "core bankruptcy proceeding" for jurisdictional purposes. |
Bankruptcy |
|
Aug. 30, 2016 | |
|
14-56946
|
Rademaker v. Paramo
Erroneous jury instruction regarding asportation does not merit habeas relief as state appellate court reasonably deemed error harmless. |
Prisoners Rights |
|
Aug. 30, 2016 | |
|
14-16161
|
Ibrahim v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security
District court erroneously disallows fee relating to discrete litigation positions taken by government in action challenging doctor's inclusion in government terrorist databases. |
Remedies |
|
Aug. 30, 2016 | |
|
12-74062
|
Bhattarai v Lynch
Immigration judge improperly finds adverse credibility determination without providing asylum applicant opportunity to address testimonial inconsistencies. |
Immigration |
|
Aug. 30, 2016 | |
|
12-15788
|
Alvarez v. Tracy
Notwithstanding general principles of tribal sovereignty, Indian defendant entitled to habeas relief where he should have been advised that his right to a jury trial was waived when he did not expressly request one. |
Native American Affairs |
|
Aug. 30, 2016 | |
|
09-72122
|
Morales de Soto v. Lynch
Petition for review of ICE's decision to reinstate prior expedited removal order denied where intervening agency memoranda that do not change law do not require remand. |
Immigration |
|
Aug. 30, 2016 | |
|
A142201
|
Schellinger Brothers v. Cotter
Monetary judgment in favor of property developers affirmed where seller wrecks project by building trench on property in wetlands area. |
Contracts |
|
Aug. 29, 2016 | |
|
S221038
|
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (Anderson)
Bristol-Myers' substantive operations in California sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction, allowing nonresidents to pursue products liability claims involving the drug Plavix. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Aug. 29, 2016 | |
|
S214855
|
Dept. of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (County of Los Angeles)
State permitting conditions relating to storm drain systems are not federally mandated; as such, local government agencies entitled to reimbursement from state for associated costs. |
Environmental Law |
|
Aug. 29, 2016 | |
|
15-17134
|
Akina v. State of Hawaii
Changed circumstances surrounding Native Hawaiians' efforts to pursue self-governance moots Hawaiian residents' appeal over failed injunction request that sought to thwart such efforts. |
Civil Procedure |
|
Aug. 29, 2016 | |
|
15-16585
|
FTC v. AT&T Mobility LLC
AT&T wins dismissal of action challenging its disclosures regarding 'data throttling' due to its status as common carrier under FTC Act. |
Utilities |
|
Aug. 29, 2016 | |
|
14-55278
|
Mulligan v. Nichols
Loss of private sector job due to leak of police report and interview video not actionable cause under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. |
Civil Rights |
|
Aug. 29, 2016 | |
|
11-35114
|
Frost v. Gilbert
Error preventing counsel from making alternative arguments in summation not prejudicial, where insufficiency argument would have 'fallen on deaf ears' due to overwhelming prosecutorial evidence. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
Aug. 29, 2016 | |
|
A140941
|
Funsten v. Wells Fargo N.A.
Probate court erroneously rules on trustee's application regarding a no-contest clause under former Probate Code Section 21320's safe harbor, which had since been repealed. |
Probate and Trusts |
|
Aug. 28, 2016 | |
|
14-71512
|
Fenske v. Service Employees International Inc.
Government contractor injured in Iraq War may not receive concurrent payments for back injury and hearing loss where hearing loss does not precede back injury. |
Administrative Agencies |
|
Aug. 28, 2016 | |
|
14-35035
|
Trader Joe’s v. Hallatt
Lanham Act applies extraterritorially to defendant who shipped and resold Trader Joe's products in Canada, as store front 'Pirate Joe's' and lax shipping standards affect American foreign commerce under 'Timberlane.' |
International Law |
|
Aug. 28, 2016 | |
|
13-56411
|
Teutscher v. Woodson
District court's award of equitable remedies under ERISA overturned where plaintiff had already obtained jury award of front pay damages to compensate for same harm. |
Remedies |
|
Aug. 28, 2016 | |
|
13-17596
|
Dugard v. United States
Federal government not liable to kidnapping victim under Federal Tort Claims Act for parole office's failure to revoke violent predator's parole. |
Immunity |
|
Aug. 28, 2016 | |
|
13-17196
|
Demer v. IBM Corp LTD Plan
Insurer MetLife abused discretion by denying long term disability benefits to insured based on reviews conducted by independent physician consultants who only reviewed insured's medical files. |
Insurance |
|
Aug. 28, 2016 | |
|
B265879
|
People v. McDowell
Trial court not prohibited from resentencing Prop. 47 petitioner to an overall prison term amounting to same length as his previous, plea-bargained sentence. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
Aug. 28, 2016 | |
|
14-55644
|
Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim
Gang membership and drug use of man shot by officer has no bearing on officer's liability, meriting liability and damages bifurcation in civil trial. |
Evidence |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 | |
|
S235549
|
Jackson v. S.C. (People)
After an incompetent defendant has reached the maximum three-year commitment provided for by law, can the prosecution initiate a new competency proceeding by obtaining dismissal of the original complaint and proceeding on a new charging document? |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 | ||
|
S235357
|
Lopez v. Sony Electronics
Does the six-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.4, which governs actions based on birth and pre-birth injuries and is not subject to tolling for minority, or the two-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.8, which applies to actions for injury based upon exposure to a toxic substance and is subject to tolling for minority, govern an action alleging pre-birth injuries due to exposure to a toxic substance? |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 | ||
|
S235651
|
People v. Dodson
Was defendant eligible for resentencing on the penalty enhancement for committing a new felony while released on bail on a drug offense even though the superior court had reclassified the conviction for the drug offense as a misdemeanor under the provisions of Proposition 47? |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 | ||
|
S235540
|
People v. Espino
(1) May law enforcement officers conduct a search incident to the authority to arrest for a minor traffic offense, so long as a custodial arrest (even for an unrelated crime) follows? (2) Did Riley v. California (2014) __ U.S. __ [134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430] require the exclusion of evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the suspect's cell phone incident to arrest, or did the search fall within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule (see Davis v. United States (2011) 564 U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285]) in light of People v. Diaz (2011) 51 Cal.4th 84? |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 | ||
|
S236012
|
People v. Garrett
Was defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.18 on his conviction for second degree burglary either on the ground that it met the definition of misdemeanor shoplifting (Pen. Code, section 459.5) or on the ground that section 1170.18 impliedly includes any second degree burglary involving property valued at $950 or less? |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 | ||
|
S235846
|
People v. Holder
Is defendant eligible for resentencing on the penalty enhancement for serving a prior prison term on a felony conviction after the superior court had reclassified the underlying felony as a misdemeanor under the provisions of Proposition 47? |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 | ||
|
S235611
|
People v. Juergens
Was defendant eligible for resentencing on the penalty enhancement for committing a new felony while released on bail on a drug offense even though the superior court had reclassified the conviction for the drug offense as a misdemeanor under the provisions of Proposition 47? |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 | ||
|
S235635
|
People v. Nice
(1) Are probation conditions prohibiting defendant from: (a) "owning, possessing or having in his custody or control any handgun, rifle, shotgun or any firearm whatsoever or any weapon that can be concealed on his person"; and (b) "using or possessing or having in his custody or control any illegal drugs, narcotics, narcotics paraphernalia without a prescription," unconstitutionally vague? (2) Is an explicit knowledge requirement constitutionally mandated? |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 | ||
|
S235296
|
People v. Cowan
Order |
|
Aug. 25, 2016 |
