![]() All were transferred with orders stating, the “matter is transferred to the Court of Appeal. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, along come four more. Just when it looked like the court had gotten rid of all the cases on its docket that were waiting for the December decision in People v. Still more Delgadillo grant-and-hold disposals.Mitchell (see here) and one more on hold for People v. Salazar (see here) one more waiting for People v. Curiel (see here) one more holding for People v. Lynch (see here) one more on hold for People v. There were six criminal case grant-and-holds: two more waiting for a decision in People v. The attorney alleged that a store’s employees ignored his pleas for help when, at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, another customer - unmasked in violation of a public health order - “spat in his face after plaintiff, who wore a mask, asked the shopper how he got into the store without wearing a mask and then tracked the maskless man’s location through the store while trying to call the police on his phone.” The appellate court held that “nothing in the express language of the order requires business proprietors to enforce it against their patrons or customers.” It did, however, reverse the superior court’s imposition of almost $95,000 in sanctions against the plaintiff. Lowe’s Home Centers, where a Second District, Division Three, unpublished opinion upheld the dismissal by demurrer of a lawsuit by a pro per attorney. Justices Groban and Goodwin Liu dissented in Milton. But, after the Supreme Court held in In re Milton (2022) 13 Cal.5th 893 that Gallardo was not retroactive and remanded Jackson for reconsideration in light of Milton, Division Two reversed the habeas grant in an unpublished opinion. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, which restricted the fact finding a sentencing court may do in determining the nature of a criminal defendant’s prior conviction. The Fourth District, Division Two, had earlier affirmed a habeas corpus petition grant based on the retroactive application of the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. ![]() Justice Groban also recorded a dissenting vote from the denial of review in In re Jackson. Division Three held that patients have a “robust” but “not absolute” state constitutional privacy right in their medical records and that “substantial evidence supports the trial court’s implied finding that the Board established good cause to order the disclosure of the medical records.” ![]() ![]() In an opinion published on request, the First District, Division Three, upheld a subpoena for private medical information by the Medical Board of California, which was investigating a patient’s complaint against a psychiatrist “alleging she inappropriately prescribed controlled substances and violated professional boundaries” in treating a family member. Helios Psychiatry Inc., but Justice Joshua Groban recorded a vote to grant. Dissent in private medical records case.In a published opinion, the Second District, Division Four, held for the defendant employer on those issues, concluding, among other things, “an employer’s good faith belief that it is not violating precludes a finding of a knowing and intentional violation.” Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero was recused from the latest grant of review. (2022) 13 Cal.5th 93.) But the court left it to the Court of Appeal on remand to determine whether the defendant’s violations of those mandates were “willful” and “knowing and intentional” so as to justify penalty assessments. Last year, the court held in the case that the extra-hour’s pay an employer owes for improperly making an employee work during all or part of a meal or rest break period constitutes statutory “wages” that must be reported on required wage statements and be paid by specified deadlines when an employee leaves the job. Supreme Court partially opens clemency records.At yesterday’s Supreme Court conference, a double one, actions of note included:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |