Legislature bar in California

2016A court could have concluded that, although Mother appeared bonded to Baby and maintained regular visitation throughout the case, her relationship with Baby was minimal in comparison to the caregiver's primary relationship with Baby. 16 by the Legislature. [Citation.] The Legislature has provided an exception to the general rule of adoption: the court should not order a permanent plan of adoption when termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because '[t]he parents . . . have maintained regular visitation and contact with the [child] and the [child] would benefit from co

2014If a child is likely to be adopted, adoption is the plan preferred by the Legislature. [Citation.] The Legislature has provided an exception to the general rule of adoption: the court should not order a permanent plan of adoption when termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because '[t]he parents . . . have maintained regular visitation and contact with the [child] and the [child] would benefit from continuing the relationship.' " (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 50 , quoting former § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A) (now § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)).) "In the context

2024This well-settled principle is codified at section 3 of the Penal Code and appears in other codes as well.” (Burgos, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 7-8.) However, under the doctrine of Estrada, supra, “an amendment to a statute that reduces the punishment for a particular criminal offense gives rise to an inference that the statute applies retroactively to all judgments not yet final on appeal.” (Burgos, at p. 12.) Defendants contend the Estrada doctrine makes Evidence Code section 352.2 retroactive, citing the Legislature’s statement of intent as follows: “It is the intent of this Legislature to pr

2023Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 632, 638 (Melendrez); King, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 1046 .) Ordinarily, an employee’s rights against the employer for on-the- job injuries lie solely under the workers’ compensation law—i.e., when the “conditions of compensation” are present (§ 3600), the employer is immune from civil damages liability because workers’ compensation is the injured employee’s “exclusive remedy.” (§§ 3600–3602.) In addition, to prevent employees from circumventing the exclusivity rule by bringing lawsuits for work-related injuries against coemployees, who in turn would seek indemnity f

2023Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 632, 638 (Melendrez); King, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 1046 .) Ordinarily, an employee’s rights against the employer for on-the- job injuries lie solely under the workers’ compensation law—i.e., when the “conditions of compensation” are present (§ 3600), the employer is immune from civil damages liability because workers’ compensation is the injured employee’s “exclusive remedy.” (§§ 3600–3602.) In addition, to prevent employees from circumventing the exclusivity rule by bringing lawsuits for work-related injuries against coemployees, who in turn would seek indemnity f

2022Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 257, 274 [in construing a statute, courts do not insert what has been omitted or omit what has been inserted].) Moreover, 6 Indeed, in enacting Senate Bill No. 1437, the Legislature provided an exception to the requirements set forth in subdivision (e): “Subdivision (e) does not apply to a defendant when the victim is a peace officer who was killed while in the course of the peace officer’s duties, where the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of the peace officer’s duties.” (§ 189

2022(See Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137 ; Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782 .) Because these cases are inapposite, we need not discuss them.

2022(See Salas, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 424 .) BrightView argues to the contrary that the trial court did not err in ruling that Manuel’s immigration status was relevant, and therefore discoverable, because in enacting Labor Code section 1171.5 “the Legislature permitted inquiry into an individual’s immigration status when, in situations like this, there is a dispute whether an employer terminated an individual because the individual was not authorized to work in the United States.” In other words, BrightView contends that it had a legal obligation under federal immigration law to terminate Manuel

2022(See Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137 ; Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782 .) Because these cases are inapposite, we need not discuss them.

2018After stating generally that the law does not explain what less than 20 percent or five percent by volume means, the Institute posits a number of hypothetical scenarios: does the bow of a stringed instrument count as a separate object?; why would the Legislature bar an ivory figure attached to a small antique where it constitutes five percent or more of that object, but permit an exception if the same piece were affixed to a larger object?; how could the owner of an Old Master's painting, many of which used black ivory in the pigments, 8 know if the artwork fell within *617 the volume exceptio

2018After stating generally that the law does not explain what less than 20 percent or five percent by volume means, the Institute posits a number of hypothetical scenarios: does the bow of a stringed instrument count as a separate object?; why would the Legislature bar an ivory figure attached to a small antique where it constitutes five percent or more of that object, but permit an exception if the same piece were affixed to a larger object?; how could the owner of an Old Master's painting, many of which used black ivory in the pigments, 8 know if the artwork fell within *617 the volume exceptio

2018A stronger inference, however, is that the language was taken from the statutory provision on which it was modeled-Article 16.6 of the Insurance Code, which authorizes rental car companies to sell insurance coverage for risks related to the use of a rental car, "incidental to rental agreements." (§ 1758.8, subd. (b).) By the time Article 16.6 was enacted in 1999, Truta, supra , 193 Cal.App.3d 802 , 238 Cal.Rptr. 806 , had applied the principal object and purpose test to car rental companies' use of CDWs, but Article 16.6 makes no mention of this doctrine or of precluding CDWs.

2018A stronger inference, however, is that the language was taken from the statutory provision on which it was modeled-Article 16.6 of the Insurance Code, which authorizes rental car companies to sell insurance coverage for risks related to the use of a rental car, "incidental to rental agreements." (§ 1758.8, subd. (b).) By the time Article 16.6 was enacted in 1999, Truta, supra , 193 Cal.App.3d 802 , 238 Cal.Rptr. 806 , had applied the principal object and purpose test to car rental companies' use of CDWs, but Article 16.6 makes no mention of this doctrine or of precluding CDWs.

2018A sentence violates the prohibition against unconstitutionally disproportionate sentences only if it is so disproportionate that it "shocks the conscience." ( In re Lynch , supra , 8 Cal.3d at p. 424 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 .) Courts engage in a broad, fact-specific inquiry when assessing constitutional proportionality claims, considering the "totality of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense." ( People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 , 479, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390 , 668 P.2d 697 .) Calculating base terms, in contrast, is best understood as an exercise designed to pro

2018A sentence violates the prohibition against unconstitutionally disproportionate sentences only if it is so disproportionate that it "shocks the conscience." ( In re Lynch , supra , 8 Cal.3d at p. 424 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 .) Courts engage in a broad, fact-specific inquiry when assessing constitutional proportionality claims, considering the "totality of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense." ( People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 , 479, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390 , 668 P.2d 697 .) Calculating base terms, in contrast, is best understood as an exercise designed to pro

2018A sentence violates the prohibition against unconstitutionally disproportionate sentences only if it is so disproportionate that it "shocks the conscience." ( In re Lynch , supra , 8 Cal.3d at p. 424 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 .) Courts engage in a broad, fact-specific inquiry when assessing constitutional proportionality claims, considering the "totality of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense." ( People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 , 479, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390 , 668 P.2d 697 .) Calculating base terms, in contrast, is best understood as an exercise designed to pro

2018A sentence violates the prohibition against unconstitutionally disproportionate sentences only if it is so disproportionate that it "shocks the conscience." ( In re Lynch , supra , 8 Cal.3d at p. 424 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 503 P.2d 921 .) Courts engage in a broad, fact-specific inquiry when assessing constitutional proportionality claims, considering the "totality of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense." ( People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 , 479, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390 , 668 P.2d 697 .) Calculating base terms, in contrast, is best understood as an exercise designed to pro

2018After stating generally that the law does not explain what less than 20 percent or five percent by volume means, the Institute posits a number of hypothetical scenarios: does the bow of a stringed instrument count as a separate object?; why would the Legislature bar an ivory figure attached to a small antique where it constitutes five percent or more of that object, but permit an exception if the same piece were affixed to a larger object?; how could the owner of an Old Master's painting, many of which used black ivory in the pigments, 8 know if the artwork fell within *617 the volume exceptio

2018After stating generally that the law does not explain what less than 20 percent or five percent by volume means, the Institute posits a number of hypothetical scenarios: does the bow of a stringed instrument count as a separate object?; why would the Legislature bar an ivory figure attached to a small antique where it constitutes five percent or more of that object, but permit an exception if the same piece were affixed to a larger object?; how could the owner of an Old Master's painting, many of which used black ivory in the pigments, 8 know if the artwork fell within *617 the volume exceptio

2018The Board promulgated base term regulations in response to the Legislature's instruction to establish "criteria" that would promote sentence uniformity for inmates serving lifetime sentences. ( Dannenberg , supra , 34 Cal.4th at pp. 1078-1079, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 .) The Board may not, however, release an inmate until the individual no longer poses a threat to "public safety," regardless of any base term calculation. ( Id. at pp. 1083-1084, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 .) In fact, we specifically instructed the Board to "eschew term uniformity" if public safety considerations

2018The Board promulgated base term regulations in response to the Legislature's instruction to establish "criteria" that would promote sentence uniformity for inmates serving lifetime sentences. ( Dannenberg , supra , 34 Cal.4th at pp. 1078-1079, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 .) The Board may not, however, release an inmate until the individual no longer poses a threat to "public safety," regardless of any base term calculation. ( Id. at pp. 1083-1084, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417 , 104 P.3d 783 .) In fact, we specifically instructed the Board to "eschew term uniformity" if public safety considerations

2016(Bussard, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 864 .) We do not, of course, know whether the enactment of Business and Professions Code section 25666 was prompted by the Department’s complaint to the Legislature that hearing officers were improperly refusing to grant continuances on the grounds of the minor’s illness.

2016A court could have concluded that, although Mother appeared bonded to Baby and maintained regular visitation throughout the case, her relationship with Baby was minimal in comparison to the caregiver's primary relationship with Baby. 16 by the Legislature. [Citation.] The Legislature has provided an exception to the general rule of adoption: the court should not order a permanent plan of adoption when termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because '[t]he parents . . . have maintained regular visitation and contact with the [child] and the [child] would benefit from co