pivotal inquiry in California

2013Standards for Independent Contractor As this court said in Angelotti v. The Walt Disney Co. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 863 ] (Angelotti), the “existence of *1143 an employment relationship is a question for the trier of fact, but can be decided by the court as a matter of law if the evidence supports only one reasonable conclusion.” The pivotal inquiry looks at the “control of details”—i.e., whether the principal has “ ‘the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired. . ..’ ” (S. G.

2013Standards for Independent Contractor As this court said in Angelotti v. The Walt Disney Co. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1404 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 863 ] (Angelotti), the “existence of *1143 an employment relationship is a question for the trier of fact, but can be decided by the court as a matter of law if the evidence supports only one reasonable conclusion.” The pivotal inquiry looks at the “control of details”—i.e., whether the principal has “ ‘the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired. . ..’ ” (S. G.

2013Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 350 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 769 P.2d 399 ].) The California Supreme Court has declared that “the owner may retain a broad general power of supervision and control as to the results of the work so as to insure satisfactory performance of the independent contract— including the right to inspect [citation], ... the right to make suggestions or recommendations as to details of the work [citation], the right to prescribe alterations or deviations in the work [citation]—without changing the relationship from that of owner

2013Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 350 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 769 P.2d 399 ].) The California Supreme Court has declared that “the owner may retain a broad general power of supervision and control as to the results of the work so as to insure satisfactory performance of the independent contract— including the right to inspect [citation], ... the right to make suggestions or recommendations as to details of the work [citation], the right to prescribe alterations or deviations in the work [citation]—without changing the relationship from that of owner

1984(See 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, § 148, p. 141.) Accordingly, lack of actual knowledge of the provisions of section 63.44(B)(14) is of no legal significance, the pivotal inquiry being “whether the defendant was aware that he was engaging in the conduct proscribed by that section.” (People v. Snyder (1982) 32 Cal.3d 590, 593 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 485 , 652 P.2d 42 ]; accord People v. Little (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14 , 21 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 619 ].) II * The judgment is affirmed.

1984(See 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, § 148, p. 141.) Accordingly, lack of actual knowledge of the provisions of section 63.44(B)(14) is of no legal significance, the pivotal inquiry being “whether the defendant was aware that he was engaging in the conduct proscribed by that section.” (People v. Snyder (1982) 32 Cal.3d 590, 593 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 485 , 652 P.2d 42 ]; accord People v. Little (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14 , 21 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 619 ].) II * The judgment is affirmed.

1981That is to say, the causal effect—of whatever magnitude —on the protected activity must be merely incidental to the legislative purpose as distinguished from “insubstantial.” (Cf., e.g., Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 47-48 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 599 P.2d 46 ]; see also Tribe, op. cit. supra, at pp. 602-603.) While we recognize that the scope of restrictions on free speech is an important factor to be considered in the weighing process (cf. Baldwin v. Redwood City, supra, 540 F.2d at pp. 1372-1373), a pivotal inquiry remains as to whether the governmental i

1981That is to say, the causal effect—of whatever magnitude —on the protected activity must be merely incidental to the legislative purpose as distinguished from “insubstantial.” (Cf., e.g., Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 47-48 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 599 P.2d 46 ]; see also Tribe, op. cit. supra, at pp. 602-603.) While we recognize that the scope of restrictions on free speech is an important factor to be considered in the weighing process (cf. Baldwin v. Redwood City, supra, 540 F.2d at pp. 1372-1373), a pivotal inquiry remains as to whether the governmental i

2013Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 350 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 769 P.2d 399 ].) The California Supreme Court has declared that “the owner may retain a broad general power of supervision and control as to the results of the work so as to insure satisfactory performance of the independent contract— including the right to inspect [citation], ... the right to make suggestions or recommendations as to details of the work [citation], the right to prescribe alterations or deviations in the work [citation]—without changing the relationship from that of owner

2013Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, 350 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 769 P.2d 399 ].) The California Supreme Court has declared that “the owner may retain a broad general power of supervision and control as to the results of the work so as to insure satisfactory performance of the independent contract— including the right to inspect [citation], ... the right to make suggestions or recommendations as to details of the work [citation], the right to prescribe alterations or deviations in the work [citation]—without changing the relationship from that of owner

1994(Hinson v. Clairemont Community Hospital (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1125 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 503 ].) The pivotal claim in this proceeding of which proof by respondents was required was that appellants had voted to voluntarily dissolve West Coast under the provisions of sections 1900 and 601, subdivision (f).

1994(Hinson v. Clairemont Community Hospital (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1125 [ 267 Cal.Rptr. 503 ].) The pivotal claim in this proceeding of which proof by respondents was required was that appellants had voted to voluntarily dissolve West Coast under the provisions of sections 1900 and 601, subdivision (f).