lexisONE® Community

1. Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., S147552, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 3, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: Installing a hidden video camera in an office, although a privacy intrusion under Cal. Const., art 1, § 1, was not actionable because it was not highly offensive to a reasonable person, given that an unknown person was accessing pornography on the Internet and the employer wanted to provide a wholesome environment for abused children in its care.

2. Sheehan v. San Francisco 49ers, Ltd., S155742, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 2, 2009, Filed

OVERVIEW: In a case in which plaintiffs alleged football team violated Cal. Const., art. I, § 1, after it implemented policy requiring fans to submit to a patdown before entering stadium, the patdown policy could not be reviewed for reasonableness under the circumstances because the record did not establish circumstances of, or the reasons for, the policy.

3. 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.

4. Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc., S138130, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, January 24, 2008, Filed

OVERVIEW: A terminated employee could not state a cause of action against a telecommunications company under the California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq., based on the company's refusal to accommodate his use of medical marijuana pursuant to the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5.

5. Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court, S134072, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 27, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: In a case in which a newspaper sought to compel the release of the names and certain identifying employment data pertaining to peace officers throughout California pursuant to the California Public Records Act, the records at issue were not rendered confidential by Pen. Code, §§ 832.7 & 832.8.

6. International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, S134253, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 27, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: Newspapers were entitled to disclosure of salary information of all city employees who earned $ 100,000 or more because disclosure of the information was not an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; salary information was not exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.

7. People v. Leonard, S054291 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, May 17, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: Competency of a murder defendant who was disabled by epilepsy should, under Pen. Code, § 1369, have been evaluated by the director of the regional center for the developmentally disabled, but failure to appoint director was not prejudicial because defendant's competency to stand trial was evaluated by doctors who were familiar with his disability.

8. Jacob B. v. County of Shasta, S142496 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 5, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: Litigation privilege of Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b), applied to a claim against a county for invasion of the constitutional right of privacy, which arose from a letter written by employees of a victim witness program; the letter, which described a child molestation claim, was privileged because it was presented to a court in a family law proceeding.

9. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., S124739 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, July 13, 2006, Filed

OVERVIEW: Clients who resided in California could maintain an invasion of privacy action brought against a financial services company to enjoin undisclosed recording of telephone calls made to a branch office in Georgia, although such recording was lawful in Georgia, because the application of Pen. Code, § 632, would not severely impair Georgia's interests.

10. John B. v. Superior Court, S128248 , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA , July 3, 2006, Filed

OVERVIEW: In a case in which a wife alleged that her husband had negligently infected her with HIV, discovery of the husband's medical records and previous sexual conduct was limited because the husband had a negative HIV test, which restricted the window period of possible infection to the six month period preceding the negative test.

« 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.