Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cruz v. Homebasegreen2 sentences2006Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b); see White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 , 981 P.2d 944 ] (White); see also Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 435 ] [“ ‘Managing agents’ are employees who ‘exercise[] substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.’ [Citation.]” (italics omitted)].) The trial court granted Lockheed’s motion for directed verdict on the ground Gelfo failed to present sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to permit the jury to find a corporate decision maker was invol 2006Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b); see White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 , 981 P.2d 944 ] (White); see also Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 435 ] [“ ‘Managing agents’ are employees who ‘exercise[] substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.’ [Citation.]” (italics omitted)].) The trial court granted Lockheed’s motion for directed verdict on the ground Gelfo failed to present sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to permit the jury to find a corporate decision maker was invol | 1 | 1 |
White v. Ultramar, Inc.green2 sentences2006Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b); see White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 , 981 P.2d 944 ] (White); see also Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 435 ] [“ ‘Managing agents’ are employees who ‘exercise[] substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.’ [Citation.]” (italics omitted)].) The trial court granted Lockheed’s motion for directed verdict on the ground Gelfo failed to present sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to permit the jury to find a corporate decision maker was invol 2006Code, § 3294, subds. (a), (b); see White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 , 981 P.2d 944 ] (White); see also Cruz v. HomeBase (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 160, 167 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 435 ] [“ ‘Managing agents’ are employees who ‘exercise[] substantial discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determine corporate policy.’ [Citation.]” (italics omitted)].) The trial court granted Lockheed’s motion for directed verdict on the ground Gelfo failed to present sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to permit the jury to find a corporate decision maker was invol | 1 | 1 |
California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School Districtgreen2 sentences2002Finally, the fact that the statute may have a “devastating effect” on some honest claimants does not show the Legislature did not mean what it said. “ ‘This court has no power to rewrite the statute so as to make it conform to a presumed intention which is not expressed. [Citations.]’ ” {California Teachers Assn v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 633 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 , 927 P.2d 1175 ].) *1249 Thus, CAAA’s policy concerns, expressed in a parade of horribles—delay or denial of benefits, delay in employees’ return to work, litigation explosion, increased cl 2002Finally, the fact that the statute may have a “devastating effect” on some honest claimants does not show the Legislature did not mean what it said. “ ‘This court has no power to rewrite the statute so as to make it conform to a presumed intention which is not expressed. [Citations.]’ ” {California Teachers Assn v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 633 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 671 , 927 P.2d 1175 ].) *1249 Thus, CAAA’s policy concerns, expressed in a parade of horribles—delay or denial of benefits, delay in employees’ return to work, litigation explosion, increased cl | 1 | 1 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen2 sentences1996As the court stated, “[The employer] sought mechanics, [Green’s] trade, and continued to do so after [Green’s] rejection. [The employer], moreover, does not dispute [Green’s] qualifications and acknowledges that his past work performance in [employer’s] employ was ‘satisfactory.’ ” (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, 411 U.S. at p. 802 [ 36 L.Ed.2d at p. 678 ], fns. omitted.) Hence, as the facts of McDonnell Douglas demonstrate, nothing within McDonnell Douglas itself supports Lockheed’s claim as to the elements of a plaintiff’s prima facie case. 6 The dissent in St. 1996As the court stated, “[The employer] sought mechanics, [Green’s] trade, and continued to do so after [Green’s] rejection. [The employer], moreover, does not dispute [Green’s] qualifications and acknowledges that his past work performance in [employer’s] employ was ‘satisfactory.’ ” (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, 411 U.S. at p. 802 [ 36 L.Ed.2d at p. 678 ], fns. omitted.) Hence, as the facts of McDonnell Douglas demonstrate, nothing within McDonnell Douglas itself supports Lockheed’s claim as to the elements of a plaintiff’s prima facie case. 6 The dissent in St. | 1 | 1 |
Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazrajigreen2 sentences1994On appeal, Lockheed urges this court to uphold the trial court’s conclusion, citing to the “common popular understanding that there are three major human races — Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.” (Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji (1987) 481 U.S. 604, 610, fn. 4 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 582 , 590, 107 S.Ct. 2022 ].) As we shall see, the lack of a common understanding of how to define race, which the Supreme Court acknowledged in Saint Francis, defeats Lockheed’s claim. 1994On appeal, Lockheed urges this court to uphold the trial court’s conclusion, citing to the “common popular understanding that there are three major human races — Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.” (Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji (1987) 481 U.S. 604, 610, fn. 4 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 582 , 590, 107 S.Ct. 2022 ].) As we shall see, the lack of a common understanding of how to define race, which the Supreme Court acknowledged in Saint Francis, defeats Lockheed’s claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board
green
1 sentence2014(Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17, 31 ; Stockton v. Ortiz, supra, 47 Cal.App.3d at pp. 192- 194; Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1417 , 1428- 1429.) The City contends it “could not have amended the complaint earlier because Shell did not disclose its Lockheed defense until the eve of trial.” But the City had known Dr. Wilson would be a witness since May 2009. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Trafton v. Youngblood
green
1 sentence2014(Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17, 31 ; Stockton v. Ortiz, supra, 47 Cal.App.3d at pp. 192- 194; Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1417 , 1428- 1429.) The City contends it “could not have amended the complaint earlier because Shell did not disclose its Lockheed defense until the eve of trial.” But the City had known Dr. Wilson would be a witness since May 2009. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Stockton v. Ortiz
green
1 sentence2014(Trafton v. Youngblood (1968) 69 Cal.2d 17, 31 ; Stockton v. Ortiz, supra, 47 Cal.App.3d at pp. 192- 194; Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1417 , 1428- 1429.) The City contends it “could not have amended the complaint earlier because Shell did not disclose its Lockheed defense until the eve of trial.” But the City had known Dr. Wilson would be a witness since May 2009. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.
green
1 sentence2013The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the issue was whether Martin had raised a triable issue of fact material to Lockheed’s showing that on a specific occasion in early 1991 the plaintiff was reassigned by means of valid and fair procedures validly and fairly applied without regard to her age. ( Martin, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1734-1735.) The court concluded that the plaintiff’s “showing in 10 the trial court was insufficient to create more than speculation that Lockheed’s showing was pretextual or false.” (Id. at p. 1735.) Therefore, did Jackson present “substantial responsive e | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Norgart v. Upjohn Co.
green
2 sentences2003We review the trial court's order independently. ( Norgart v. Upjohn Co., supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 404 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 , 981 P.2d 79 .) Although the trial court found that 28 FTP's had notice of the contaminated groundwater as a result of the widespread and pervasive publicity, it denied summary adjudication of their personal injury claims on the ground that they lacked sufficient information to place them on inquiry notice to trigger the statute of limitations. 2003We review the trial court's order independently. ( Norgart v. Upjohn Co., supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 404 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 , 981 P.2d 79 .) Although the trial court found that 28 FTP's had notice of the contaminated groundwater as a result of the widespread and pervasive publicity, it denied summary adjudication of their personal injury claims on the ground that they lacked sufficient information to place them on inquiry notice to trigger the statute of limitations. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Weyerhaeuser Steamship Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1984Those provisions, contained at 5 United States Code section 8116 (c), state: “The liability of the United States . . . under [FECA] . . . with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States ... to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and any other person otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States . . . because of the injury or death . . . .” The Lockheed court noted that it had previously construed FECA in Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. U.S. (1963) 372 U.S. 597 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 1 , 1984Those provisions, contained at 5 United States Code section 8116 (c), state: “The liability of the United States . . . under [FECA] . . . with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States ... to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and any other person otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States . . . because of the injury or death . . . .” The Lockheed court noted that it had previously construed FECA in Weyerhaeuser S. S. Co. v. U.S. (1963) 372 U.S. 597 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 1 , | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Rawlings
green
2 sentences1977(We find no help for the People’s assertion in People v. Rawlings (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 952 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 651 ], on which People rely.) Thus, we hold that Lockheed’s plea does not preclude it from raising the issue of the validity of the judgment relative to Penal Code section 654 and that we must examine the trial record to determine whether among the several counts to which Lockheed pleaded are two or more which are based on the same act or course of conduct. 2 We are aware that in Seiterle v. Superior Court, supra, the court said (57 Cal.2d at pp. 400-401), “By pleading guilty to all [the 1977(We find no help for the People’s assertion in People v. Rawlings (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 952 [ 117 Cal.Rptr. 651 ], on which People rely.) Thus, we hold that Lockheed’s plea does not preclude it from raising the issue of the validity of the judgment relative to Penal Code section 654 and that we must examine the trial record to determine whether among the several counts to which Lockheed pleaded are two or more which are based on the same act or course of conduct. 2 We are aware that in Seiterle v. Superior Court, supra, the court said (57 Cal.2d at pp. 400-401), “By pleading guilty to all [the | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.