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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.green2 sentences2016We disagree. ‘“[A]n agency’s enforcement decisions are informed by a host of factors, some bearing no relation to the agency’s views regarding whether a violation has occurred.” (Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (2012) 567 U.S. 142, 157 [ 183 L.Ed.2d 153 , 132 S.Ct. 2156, 2168 ].) Defendants’ views are inconsistent with the purposes of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. 2016We disagree. ‘“[A]n agency’s enforcement decisions are informed by a host of factors, some bearing no relation to the agency’s views regarding whether a violation has occurred.” (Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (2012) 567 U.S. 142, 157 [ 183 L.Ed.2d 153 , 132 S.Ct. 2156, 2168 ].) Defendants’ views are inconsistent with the purposes of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025If tasks are performed at a discrete location, those tasks should be considered together in evaluating whether work there reasonably permits the use of a seat.” (Kilby, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 19 .) Focusing on the work done at a particular location allows courts “to consider the relationship between the standing and sitting tasks done there, the frequency and duration of those tasks with respect to each other, and whether sitting, or the frequency of transition between sitting and standing, would unreasonably interfere with other standing tasks or the quality and effectiveness of overall job 2023Tasks performed with more frequency or for a longer 30 duration would be more germane to the seating inquiry than tasks performed briefly or infrequently.” (Kilby, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 18 .) “[C]onsideration of all the actual tasks performed at a particular location would allow the court to consider the relationship between the standing and sitting tasks done there, the frequency and duration of those tasks with respect to each other, and whether sitting, or the frequency of transition between sitting and standing, would unreasonably interfere with other standing tasks or the quality and ef | 4 | 2022–2025 |
Morrison v. State Board of Education
green
1 sentence2010However, for purposes of imposing liability, a statute can achieve the requisite clarity regarding the “conduct prohibited” (Morrison v. State Board of Education, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 231 ) even when the statute obliges people to adhere to a reasonable standard of conduct. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores
green
1 sentence2010(Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1472 [118 Cal.Rtpr.3d 723] (Bright).) We agree with this conclusion. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.