From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sutton

Supreme Court of California
Oct 28, 2008
85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689 (Cal. 2008)

Summary

granting review of Court of Appeal decision interpreting "provide" for purposes of meal and rest periods

Summary of this case from Wong v. HSBC Mortg. Corp. (Usa)

Opinion


Page __

__ Cal.4th __ 196 P.3d 216, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 689 PEOPLE v. SUTTON (Michael Jerome). No. S166402 Supreme Court of California October 28, 2008

         Prior Report: __ Cal.App. __, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 195.

          OPINION

          Petition for review granted; issues limited (criminal case).

          The petitions for review are granted.

          The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Were defendants’ statutory speedy trial rights violated when defense counsel announced ready but that he might be in another trial, and the court continued trial for six days over defendants’ personal objection, and if so, was the error prejudicial?

         [196 P.3d 217] GEORGE, C.J., and KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, MORENO, and CORRIGAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sutton

Supreme Court of California
Oct 28, 2008
85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689 (Cal. 2008)

granting review of Court of Appeal decision interpreting "provide" for purposes of meal and rest periods

Summary of this case from Wong v. HSBC Mortg. Corp. (Usa)

pending before the California Supreme Court, in part, on the issue of whether an employer must simply make a provision for meal break or ensure employees receive meal breaks under similar California state laws

Summary of this case from Creely v. Hcr Manorcare Inc.
Case details for

People v. Sutton

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. SUTTON (Michael Jerome).

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 28, 2008

Citations

85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 689 (Cal. 2008)
196 P.3d 216

Citing Cases

Wong v. HSBC Mortg. Corp. (Usa)

(See Second Amended Complaint ¶ 57.) Such claim would require the resolution of numerous legal and factual…

Wang v. Chinese Daily News

A pair of cases now pending in the California Supreme Court present the question whether employers need only…