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.
5 California opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Goregreen2 sentences2022Huang is “primarily engaged in the business of selling . . . services.” (Simpson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 30 .) The statements at issue were “representations of fact about . . . a business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services.” (Ibid., italics added; JAMS, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 995-996.) Further, “the intended audience for the statement or conduct” 15 to whether the statements at issue were made for the purpose of “promoting, or securing sales or leases of, or commercial transactions in, [Auchel’s] goods or services.” (Simpson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 30 [third element].) 2022Huang is “primarily engaged in the business of selling . . . services.” (Simpson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 30 .) The statements at issue were “representations of fact about . . . a business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services.” (Ibid., italics added; JAMS, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 995-996.) Further, “the intended audience for the statement or conduct” 15 to whether the statements at issue were made for the purpose of “promoting, or securing sales or leases of, or commercial transactions in, [Auchel’s] goods or services.” (Simpson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 30 [third element].) | 2 | 2 |
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences1978The United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, 530 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 101, 117 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 ] set forth a four-element test for determining whether a delay in trial violated federal constitutional standards, as follows: “Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” The court required that these factors be considered together, none in itself being “either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial.” (Id., at p. 533 [ 33 L.Ed.2d at p. 118 ].) In the c 1978The United States Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, 530 [ 33 L.Ed.2d 101, 117 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 ] set forth a four-element test for determining whether a delay in trial violated federal constitutional standards, as follows: “Length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” The court required that these factors be considered together, none in itself being “either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial.” (Id., at p. 533 [ 33 L.Ed.2d at p. 118 ].) In the c | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
JAMS, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County
green
2 sentences2022Huang is “primarily engaged in the business of selling . . . services.” (Simpson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 30 .) The statements at issue were “representations of fact about . . . a business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services.” (Ibid., italics added; JAMS, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 995-996.) Further, “the intended audience for the statement or conduct” 15 to whether the statements at issue were made for the purpose of “promoting, or securing sales or leases of, or commercial transactions in, [Auchel’s] goods or services.” (Simpson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 30 [third element].) 2021Huang is “primarily engaged in the business of selling . . . services.” (Simpson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 30 .) The statements at issue were “representations of fact about . . . a business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services.” (Ibid., italics added; JAMS, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 995-996.) Further, “the intended audience for the statement or conduct” 15 to whether the statements at issue were made for the purpose of “promoting, or securing sales or leases of, or commercial transactions in, [Auchel’s] goods or services.” (Simpson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 30 [third element].) | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Shelly & Anderson Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
green
1 sentence2004Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B. (9th Cir. 1974) 497 F.2d 1200, 1202-1203 , is applicable because that test predates the NLRB’s change of the standard of determining when the acts of a single employee constitute concerted activity. 8 The text of section 7 of the NLRA shows that purpose is related to “mutual aid or protection.” ( 29 U.S.C. § 157 .) 9 We do not reach the questions whether the “peripheral concern” or “deeply rooted in local law” exceptions to Garmon preemption are applicable in this case, or whether the Sears “identical controversy” exception to preemption is applicable. 10 As a result of L | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.