CA Pub. Decisions

1. ESTRADA v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM Part I
   Aug 22, 2007
   Substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that, for purposes of determining commercial drivers' right to reimbursement for their expenses, the drivers were employees within the meaning of Labor Code Sec. 2802 where employer controlled virtually every aspect of …
2. ESTRADA v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM Part II
   Aug 22, 2007
   Substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that, for purposes of determining commercial drivers' right to reimbursement for their expenses, the drivers were employees within the meaning of Labor Code Sec. 2802 where employer controlled virtually every aspect of …
3. FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION v. RLI INSURANCE COMPANY PARTI
   Aug 22, 2007
   In determining which state's law to apply to the interpretation of an insurance policy, trial court must apply Civil Code Sec. 1646 which states that a contract is to be interpreted according to the law and usage of the place it is to be performed if the contract "indicat…
4. FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION v. RLI INSURANCE COMPANY PART II
   Aug 22, 2007
   In determining which state's law to apply to the interpretation of an insurance policy, trial court must apply Civil Code Sec. 1646 which states that a contract is to be interpreted according to the law and usage of the place it is to be performed if the contract "indicat…
5. FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION v. RLI INSURANCE COMPANY PARTIII
   Aug 22, 2007
   In determining which state's law to apply to the interpretation of an insurance policy, trial court must apply Civil Code Sec. 1646 which states that a contract is to be interpreted according to the law and usage of the place it is to be performed if the contract "indicat…
6. In re Marriage of JOHN and JEAN LAFKAS
   Aug 22, 2007
   Court of appeal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order on a bifurcated issue absent a certificate of probable cause from the trial court and an order from this court allowing the appeal on the bifurcated issue, and a purported appeal unaccompanied by those formalitie…
7. CLARK v. FIRST UNION SECURITIES
   Aug 22, 2007
   Where trial court ruled that certain claims were subject to compelled arbitration, but arbitrators ruled they were not arbitrable, trial court correctly reconsidered its first ruling and ordered that those claims be heard in the trial court.
8. PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ
   Aug 22, 2007
   Hearsay evidence relied on by a gang expert in forming his opinions is not "testimonial," so admission of the expert's opinion does not violate the Confrontation Clause.<br />
9. HALL v. TIME WARNER, INC
   Aug 22, 2007
   Terms of prominent actor's will and living trust were an issue of widespread public interest, and complaint charging television reporter who interviewed an elderly beneficiary at her retirement home with trespass, intrusion on seclusion, infliction of emotional distress, and …
10. PEOPLE v. ODELL
    Aug 22, 2007
    Use of CALCRIM No. 376, instructing jury on possession of recently stolen property as evidence of a crime, does not violate Sixth Amendment right to have each element of the charged offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt or violate Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of l…
11. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOAR
    Aug 22, 2007
    A modification decision.
12. DiPIRRO v. BONDO CORPORATION
    Aug 21, 2007
    A modification decision.
13. SMITH v. EXXON MOBIL OIL CORPORATION
    Aug 21, 2007
    Where plaintiff prevailed in wrongful death action after defendant's expert was unable to testify due to sudden family emergency, but plaintiff died during pendency of defendant's appeal, and plaintiff's widow and children subsequently sued defendant on basis of same …
14. TOTTEN v. HILL
    Aug 21, 2007
    An ERISA fiduciary has a claim against a beneficiary who recovers personal injury damages from a third party tortfeasor in federal court, which has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction.<br />
15. Kelsoe v. CaliforniaState Water Resources Control Board,
    Aug 21, 2007
    A modification decision.
16. In re ALFRED WILLIAM RODERICK Part I
    Aug 21, 2007
    Parole board may not deny parole based on an immutable factor of parolee's past criminal history when all other considered factors are not supported by evidence.<br />
17. In re ALFRED WILLIAM RODERICK Part II
    Aug 21, 2007
    Parole board may not deny parole based on an immutable factor of parolee's past criminal history when all other considered factors are not supported by evidence.<br />
18. In re ALFRED WILLIAM RODERICK Part III
    Aug 21, 2007
    Parole board may not deny parole based on an immutable factor of parolee's past criminal history when all other considered factors are not supported by evidence.<br />
19. In re ALFRED WILLIAM RODERICK Part IV
    Aug 21, 2007
    Parole board may not deny parole based on an immutable factor of parolee's past criminal history when all other considered factors are not supported by evidence.<br />
20. In re ALFRED WILLIAM RODERICK Part V
    Aug 21, 2007
    Parole board may not deny parole based on an immutable factor of parolee's past criminal history when all other considered factors are not supported by evidence.<br />