Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

California Appellate Tracker

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

A superior court’s branch with only one sitting judge is still part of a larger court with more than one authorized judge, so the normal rules setting the time for filing a 170.6 challenge apply, not CCP 170.6(a)(2) which sets a special rule for courts authorized to have only one judge.  Read More

Mandate was denied because it was not clear that the contractual forum selection clause applied to the claims plaintiff alleged and because the only harm petitioner would suffer by raising the issue on a normal post-judgment appeal was the cost of the trial proceedings.  Read More

A regulation banning conduct by California state university students that “threatens or endangers the health or safety of any person including intimidation and harassment” is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, because the words “threatens or endangers health or safety” give context and meaning to the prohibited “intimidation and harassment.”  Read More

A letter from a state-level fire department supervisor to a county-level fire supervisor asking that plaintiff not be assigned any duty that brought him on state fire department premises was not protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute, and in fact it breached a settlement agreement under which plaintiff had voluntarily resigned rather than face charges of sexual assault.  Read More

USC violated common law standards of fair procedure in disciplining Doe in connection with a group sexual encounter at a fraternity party, by giving him inadequate notice of the charges against him and denying him a fair hearing.  Read More

Bishop of Episcopalian diocese lacked authority to amend the canons of the corporation sole in whose name the diocese’s property was held, so transfers of diocese property which the bishop made pursuant to his purported amendments were invalid.  Read More

A completely uncooperative father’s appeal from a juvenile court order removing a child from his custody is dismissed under the appellate disentitlement doctrine.  Read More

There was sufficient evidence to support a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s prohibition of discrimination against a person based on his association with a disabled person, when an employee's new boss purposefully scheduled him to drive later-than-usual truck routes so as to prevent him from being able to administer dialysis to his son, thus ridding the company… Read More

An employer must provide an employee a seat if the nature of the employee’s tasks at that location, objectively viewed in light of all the circumstances, reasonably permit sitting and sitting would not interfere with tasks that require standing at that location. Read More

Questions of fact prevented summary judgment on defense that plaintiff’s graphical method of presenting medical test results was functional and so not a protectable trade dress. Read More

Warships are not “products” for purposes of strict liability in tort since they are not distributed commercially; also, the “any exposure” theory is insufficient proof of causation in an asbestosis case.  Read More

California's general rule requiring automatic disqualification of counsel involved in a simultaneous conflict of interest does not apply to or require disqualification of the counsel for plaintiffs in a class action who drafted a settlement that gave named class representatives an interest in conflict with unnamed class members’ interests.   Read More

In this mixed-motive wrongful termination case, the trial court did not err in giving a jury instruction that required the plaintiff to prove that the forbidden motive was "a substantial motivating reason" for the termination.  Read More

Arbitration clause in employment agreement was not unconscionable; its reservation of the right to seek injunctive relief pending arbitration merely restated a right conferred by statute, and a non-exclusive list of only employee claims did not make the otherwise bilateral arbitration clause one-sided.   Read More

The trial court correctly vacated the portion of the arbitrator's initial award which awarded attorney fees to defendant employer for defeating plaintiff employee's claims for overtime and meal break compensation which she claimed she was entitled to as a non-exempt employee under California's Labor Code.  Read More

When the public entity owner stopped deducting retention amounts midway through a project but did not pay the prime contractor retention amounts already withheld, prime contractor was not required to pay subcontractors retention amounts it had previously withheld.  Read More

1 181 182 183 184 185