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 ...
Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, overruled by People v. Satchell (1971) 6 Cal.3d 28, the California Supreme Court held that homicide during the commission of a felony can constitute second degree murder if the felony is "inherently dangerous to human life." [7] In People v. Hansen (1994) 9 Cal.4th 300, overruled by People v.
Keeler v. Superior Court, Supreme Court of California, 2 Cal. 3d 619 (1970), is a criminal case in which a man who deliberately killed a viable fetus in a woman, was determined not to be guilty of murder because the murder statute was written in 1850 when "human being" meant a person born alive, so there was no fair warning (), there being no common law crimes in California whereby statutory ...
Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened ...
Image of Mono Lake from space, 1985 Lakeside of Mono Lake 1999. National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (Supreme Court of California, 1983, 33 Cal.3d 419) was a key case in California highlighting the conflict between the public trust doctrine and appropriative water rights. [1]
Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that first recognized that a "direct victim" of negligence can recover damages for emotional distress without an accompanying physical injury. [1]
La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that limited the scope of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The majority opinion was authored by Associate Justice David Eagleson , and it is regarded as his single most famous opinion and representative of his conservative judicial ...
Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (2003), is a decision of the California Supreme Court, authored by Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar.In Hamidi the California Supreme Court held that a former Intel Corporation employee's e-mails to current Intel employees, despite requests by Intel to stop sending messages, did not constitute trespass of Intel's e-mail system.