While riding his bicycle, a defendant in a criminal matter collided with a pedestrian, seriously injuring her. The district attorney charged him with recklessly driving a “vehicle” under Vehicle Code section 23103. One section of the code, however, defines “vehicle” in a way that excludes bicycles. (Veh.Code § 670.) Another section of the code subjects […]
Wrong Standard Of Review Applied In Disability Retirement Petition For Writ Of Mandate.
In his first application for industrial disability retirement, a police officer said he could not work because of back pain. After his first application was denied, he submitted a second one stating he experienced PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], specifically flashbacks and nightmares about his combat experience during the Gulf War, early in his career with […]
Legal Malpractice Statute Of Limitations.
Plaintiff hired a lawyer to represent her in litigation. After settlement, plaintiff sought a refund of unearned attorney fees she had advanced as the lawyer had written her a letter stating she had a credit balance of $46,321.85 and the invoice so reflected. When the refund was not forthcoming, she hired another lawyer to try […]
Substantial Factor, Not But-For Test, Applies In Suit Against Drug Company.
A former drug salesman filed a qui tam action [qui tam is short for the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.”] against his former employer, a drug company. The California […]
Personal Injury Practice Is Quite Complicated Indeed.
A plaintiffs’ law firm filed a personal injury accident in court against a defendant who allegedly caused a vehicle collision. The defendant driver had $100,000 in liability coverage. The injured plaintiff’s employer’s workers’ compensation carrier filed a complaint in intervention, contending the benefits it paid exceeded $100,000, and asserted a right to reimbursement. When the […]
Under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Closely Held Corporations Are Excused From Obamacare’s Contraceptive Mandate.
The United States Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [RFRA] permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] to demand that closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage by methods of contraception that violate sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners. One […]
Employers May Not Average Commission Payments Over Certain Pay Periods.
Plaintiff is a commissioned salesperson who received biweekly paychecks, which included hourly wages in every pay period and commission wages approximated every other pay period. After plaintiff’s wage and hour action against her employer was removed to federal court and made it to the appeal stage, the Ninth Circuit requested the California Supreme Court to […]
Defendants Took Drunk Friend To The Edge Of A Cliff, And Then Didn’t Call For Help When He Fell.
Plaintiff was severely injured from a fall from the edge of a cliff above the Sacramento River in Redding. Although he cannot recall how or why he fell, he sued his two companions, asserting causes of action for assault and battery, negligence, willful misconduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claims that defendants put him […]
Duty Of Care Extends To Architects.
A homeowners association brought an action for construction defects which made the homes unsafe and uninhabitable. Two of the defendants are architectural firms which allegedly designed the homes in a negligent manner but did not make the final decisions regarding how the homes would be built. When the case reached the California Supreme Court on […]
Good Faith Error Does Not Disqualify For Unemployment Benefits.
An employee refused to sign a written disciplinary notice because he disputed the factual allegations in it and because he thought he was entitled to consult with his union representative first. The only question before the California Supreme Court was “whether the single act of disobedience constituted misconduct within the meaning of California’s Unemployment Insurance […]
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- …
- 182
- Next Page »