lexisONE® Community

1. Strauss v. Horton, S168047, S168066, S168078, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: California Supreme Court concluded that Proposition 8, which provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment, not an impermissible revision, does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under an "inalienable rights" theory.

2. In re Marriage Cases, S147999, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 15, 2008, Filed

OVERVIEW: By excluding same-sex couples from the designation of marriage, Fam. Code §§ 300 and 308.5, violated Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 1, 7 because the fundamental civil right to marry applied without regard to sexual orientation and the state did not have a compelling interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples.

3. Siebel v. Mittlesteadt, S125590, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 16, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: Postjudgment settlement of an employee's claims did not preclude a malicious prosecution action brought by a corporate executive who received a favorable judgment in the underlying proceeding because he settled without giving up any portion of the judgment in his favor, although the settlement agreement compromised an award against the company.

4. San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco, S131818 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 18, 2006, Filed

OVERVIEW: City of San Francisco did not have to arbitrate with a firefighters' union before requiring the use of statistically valid grouping for certification of candidates for promotion. The new rule was reasonably related to ensuring compliance with antidiscrimination laws and thus was exempt from arbitration under S.F. Charter, § A8.590-5(g)(3).

5. Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, S122923, S122865 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 12, 2004, Filed

OVERVIEW: Same-sex marriages performed by local officials were void from inception because state law defined marriage as being between man and woman; officials lacked authority to decline to enforce laws based on their opinion that they were unconstitutional.

6. People v. McDermott, No. S016081. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 12, 2002, Decided , August 12, 2002, Filed

OVERVIEW: Although murder defendant argued that that the State impermissibly used peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors on the basis of race, defendant failed to demonstrate error in the trial court's denial of her Batson motion.

7. Konig v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission, No. S087843. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 29, 2002, Decided , July 29, 2002, Filed

OVERVIEW: The Fair Employment and Housing Commission had the statutory authority to award emotional distress damages to an African-American woman denied fair housing.

8. Silo v. CHW Med. Found., No. S095918. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 16, 2002, Decided

OVERVIEW: A religious organization was not subject to tort liability for terminating an at will employee who engaged in inappropriate religious speech.

9. Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose, No. S080318. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, November 30, 2000, Decided

OVERVIEW: City's program which required contractors bidding on city projects to include specified percentage of women and minority subcontractors or document efforts to do so violated state constitution.

10. Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., No. S054561., SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 2, 1999, Decided

OVERVIEW: Once the lower court found that the employee's pattern of speech constituted employment discrimination, an injunctive order prohibiting the repetition, perpetuation, or continuation of that practice was not a prohibited "prior restraint" of speech.

« Back to Top

Did you find the case you're looking for in these results?
If not, check the available jurisdictions and courts for Free lexisONE Case Searches.