|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
State Courts -
California - June 29, 2009
|
| |
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, S151615,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Unions lacked standing under the unfair competition law and also lacked standing under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Lab. Code, ? 2698 et seq., in a suit alleging labor law violations because they had not suffered injury in fact under Bus. & Prof. Code, ? 17204, and were not aggrieved employees under Lab. Code, ? 2699.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Owen v. Macy's, Inc., B207719,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Under Lab. Code, ? 227.3, an employee could not claim any vested right to vacation during the first six months of employment because the employer's policy made clear in advance that vacation was not part of a new employee's compensation.
|
|
| |
People v. Hajjaj, D054754,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Physical distance of an available and ready branch courtroom from the main courthouse's location, which made it impossible to bring the case to trial late in the afternoon of the last statutory day for trial, constituted good cause under Pen. Code, ? 1382, subd. (a), to commence the trial the next day at the branch court.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Sanders Construction Co., Inc. v. Cerda, E047501,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Unpaid laborers of an unlicensed subcontractor were statutory employees of the general contractor under Lab. Code, ? 2750.5, thereby obligating the general contractor to pay their wages. Bus. & Prof. Code, ? 7031, did not prohibit the laborers from suing the general contractor for their wages.
|
|
| |
Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Chiu, B209550,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, June 29, 2009, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Even if plain language of Pen. Code, ? 1202.4, and the rules of restitution did not allow victims to recover through both a restitution order and a civil judgment, insurance carrier's status as victim's insurer allowed it to pursue a civil action against victim's former employee for reimbursement for victim's claim resulting from employee's theft.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback