Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court and Charles Lee, Real Party in Interest, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) was a landmark case handed down by the California Supreme Court on April 30, 2018. A class of drivers for a same-day delivery company, Dynamex, claimed that they were misclassified as independent contractors and thus unlawfully deprived of ...
In turn, it was the California Practice Act that served as the foundation of the California Code of Civil Procedure. New York never enacted Field's proposed civil or political codes, and belatedly enacted his proposed penal and criminal procedure codes only after California, but they were the basis of the codes enacted by California in 1872. [11]
The California Code of Civil Procedure (abbreviated to Code Civ. Proc. in the California Style Manual [a] or just CCP in treatises and other less formal contexts) is a California code enacted by the California State Legislature in March 1872 as the general codification of the law of civil procedure in the U.S. state of California, along with the three other original Codes.
Upon completing this task in 1953, the Code Commission was replaced by the California Law Revision Commission. Strangely, although there is a Code of Civil Procedure, there was never a Code of Criminal Procedure; California's law of criminal procedure is codified in Part 2 of the Penal Code.
Thus, the official reporter of decisions of the California Supreme Court (titled California Reports) is abbreviated "Cal." (or, for subsequent series, "Cal. 2d," "Cal. 3d", or "Cal. 4th"). Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928), a case in the New York Court of Appeals, reported in New York Reports. Note that the New York ...
One quirk of California law is that when a party petitions the appellate courts for a writ of mandate (California's version of mandamus), the case name becomes [petitioner name] v. Superior Court (that is, the superior court is the respondent on appeal), and the real opponent is then listed below those names as the " real party in interest ".
Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975), commonly referred to simply as Li, is a California Supreme Court case that judicially embraced comparative negligence in California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence.
Cal. Code — California Code (unofficial text? [3]) Cal. Code Reg. — California Code of Regulations (see: CCR below) CCR — California Code of Regulations (official text?) (source: Thomson/West) Cert. — Certiorari (appeal to a higher court) CIC — Codex Iuris Canonici, the Code of Canon Law (further specified as 1983 CIC or 1917 CIC)