| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
10-56854
|
Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa
Costa Mesa's prohibition on 'disorderly, insolent, or disruptive behavior' at city council meetings is unconstitutional because it limits protected speech. |
Constitutional Law |
|
May 6, 2013 | |
|
08-74386
|
Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder
Insulin-dependent persons with mental health problems are not entitled to protection from deportation as a particular social group. |
Immigration |
|
May 6, 2013 | |
|
C067380
|
People v. McCoy
Video testimony of quadriplegic victim is properly shown to jury where defendant had same motives in questioning her before trial, despite enhanced charges. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
May 6, 2013 | |
|
13-71486
|
Amy & Vicky v. U.S. District Court (Cantrelle)
Restitution award to child pornography victims properly includes only part of what was requested, rather than imposing liability on defendant for all losses. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
May 6, 2013 | |
|
S209164
|
Packer v. S.C. (People)
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S209167
|
Johnson v. S.C. (People)
Order |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
May 3, 2013 | |
|
S209172
|
People v. S.C. (Solus Industrial Innovations)
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S209192
|
People v. Ikeda
Does protective sweep of suspected drug trafficker’s motel room violate Fourth Amendment after officers hear voices and suspect a BB gun is inside room? |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
May 3, 2013 | |
|
S093756
|
People v. Williams
Excusal of prospective juror for cause is appropriate when he repeatedly expressed extreme discomfort with prospect of imposing death penalty. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
May 3, 2013 | |
|
B202789
|
Sargon Enterprises Inc. v. University of Southern California
Dental implant manufacturer is not entitled to new trial on lost profits after California Supreme Court agreed that trial court properly excluded its expert's testimony on that issue. |
Contracts |
|
May 3, 2013 | |
|
B239160
|
Choate v. Celite Corp.
Laid-off workers are not entitled to waiting time penalties where employer reasonably believed agreement with union waived their right to certain vacation pay. |
Labor Law |
|
May 3, 2013 | |
|
C070272
|
People v. Conley
Defendant who was sentenced under three strikes law is not entitled to resentencing under Proposition 36, but may petition for recall of sentence. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
May 3, 2013 | |
|
C067826
|
Mendocino Community Health Clinic v. State Dept. of Health Care Services
California may limit payments to federally-qualified health centers for outpatient psychological services to two visits per month, per patient. |
Health Care |
|
May 3, 2013 | |
|
S190713
|
People v. Wilkins
Instructional error causes reversal of first-degree murder conviction of defendant who burglarized a stove, which later fell from his truck, killing another driver. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
May 3, 2013 | |
|
S093756
|
People v. Williams (Corey)
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S190713
|
People v. Wilkins
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S208843
|
People v. Whitmer
Does the definition of ‘automobile’ in grand theft statute extend to include motorcycles? |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
May 3, 2013 | |
|
S208967
|
People v. Meraz
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S209324
|
Natalini v. Import Motors
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S209345
|
Loo v. S.C. (People)
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S209199
|
Solus Industrial Innovations v. S.C. (People)
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S193197
|
Russo (Vincent) on H.C.
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S194673
|
Aragon (Michael Alan) on H.C.
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S194750
|
Smith (Robert) on H.C.
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S196158
|
Reed (Melvin R.) on H.C.
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S197961
|
Rodriguez (Jose) on H.C.
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S198526
|
Hernandez (Jesus) on H.C.
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S200997
|
Thompkins (Rufus) on H.C.
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
S206347
|
Robinson v. SSW
Order |
|
May 3, 2013 | ||
|
11-56376
|
Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions Inc.
Incentive awards given to class representatives in class action settlement, which were conditioned on support of settlement, improperly undermine fairness of settlement. |
Civil Procedure |
|
May 3, 2013 |