5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bologna v. City & County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2011Presumptive negligence under Evidence Code section 669 requires proof of a specific statutory or regulatory violation and resulting harm “of the precise nature a statute [or regulation] was designed to prevent.” (Bologna v. City and County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 429, 435 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 406 ].) Plaintiff failed to identify a specific regulation designed to prevent his injury that was violated by defendants. 2011Presumptive negligence under Evidence Code section 669 requires proof of a specific statutory or regulatory violation and resulting harm “of the precise nature a statute [or regulation] was designed to prevent.” (Bologna v. City and County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 429, 435 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.3d 406 ].) Plaintiff failed to identify a specific regulation designed to prevent his injury that was violated by defendants. | 1 | 1 |
Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafifgreen1 sentence2008The purpose of this statute is to “ ‘encourag[e] workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.’ ” (Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 287.) To establish a prima facie case for whistleblower liability, a plaintiff must show that he or she was subjected to adverse employment action after engaging in protected activity and that there was a causal connection between the two. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hansen v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
green
1 sentence2021The purpose of this statute is to ‘ “encourag[e] workplace whistle- blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.” ’ ” (Hansen v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2008) 171 Cal.App.4th 1537, 1545-1546 .) “To establish a prima facie case for whistleblower liability, a plaintiff must show that he or she was subjected to adverse employment action after engaging in protected activity and that there was a causal connection between the two.” (Id. at p. 1546.) On appeal, Mikhail only advances two of the numerous alleged disclosures he referenced in his complaint as b | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Ross v. Cnty. of Riverside
green
2 sentences2021Carranza relies on Ross v. County of Riverside, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th 580 to assert that her reasonable belief of illegal activity was sufficient to establish she engaged in protected activity under section 1102.5 irrespective of her failure to identify a specific statutory or regulatory violation. 2021Carranza relies on Ross v. County of Riverside, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th 580 to assert that her reasonable belief of illegal activity was sufficient to establish she engaged in protected activity under section 1102.5 irrespective of her failure to identify a specific statutory or regulatory violation. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Department of Health Services of Los Angeles Cty. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n
green
1 sentence2014(Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 715 ; Department of Health Services v. Civil Service Com. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 487, 494-496 .) As appellant politely reminds us, we are not at liberty to rewrite the ordinances or rules by adding words, terms, or conditions. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital
green
1 sentence2014(Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 715 ; Department of Health Services v. Civil Service Com. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 487, 494-496 .) As appellant politely reminds us, we are not at liberty to rewrite the ordinances or rules by adding words, terms, or conditions. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.