UCSF Stanford Health Care

42 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 27,088 times 238 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137 (1999) Cited 12,978 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
Board of Regents v. Roth
408 U.S. 564 (1972) Cited 14,910 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."
Grayned v. City of Rockford
408 U.S. 104 (1972) Cited 4,776 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute's words, even when "marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity," are clear based on "what the ordinance as a whole prohibits"
Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn
460 U.S. 37 (1983) Cited 2,290 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech must be "narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication"
DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Trades Council
485 U.S. 568 (1988) Cited 729 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that a union’s distribution of handbills at the entrances of a shopping mall was not threatening, coercing, or restraining within meaning of section 8(b) because there had been "no violence, picketing, or patrolling," and "no suggestion that the leaflets had any coercive effect on customers of the mall"
Widmar v. Vincent
454 U.S. 263 (1981) Cited 891 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the state policy was based on an inaccurate understanding of the Constitution
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
431 U.S. 209 (1977) Cited 866 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that compelling nonmember employees to contribute to union's political activities infringes employees' First Amendment rights
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
447 U.S. 74 (1980) Cited 735 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "views expressed by members of the public" in a privately owned shopping mall "will not likely be identified with those of the owner"
Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Carpenters
436 U.S. 180 (1978) Cited 554 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA
Section 527.3 - When restraining orders or injunctions prevented in labor disputes
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.3 Cited 50 times 10 Legal Analyses
In section 527.3 as finally enacted, the provisions added by amendment strike a discordant stance from those surviving from the original draft, thus creating difficult problems of statutory interpretation.

UCSF Stanford Health Care

42 Cited authorities

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

Holding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."

Holding that a statute's words, even when "marked by flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity," are clear based on "what the ordinance as a whole prohibits"

Holding that content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech must be "narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication"

Holding that the state policy was based on an inaccurate understanding of the Constitution

Holding that compelling nonmember employees to contribute to union's political activities infringes employees' First Amendment rights

Holding that "views expressed by members of the public" in a privately owned shopping mall "will not likely be identified with those of the owner"

Holding that both state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board when an activity is arguably protected under § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA

In section 527.3 as finally enacted, the provisions added by amendment strike a discordant stance from those surviving from the original draft, thus creating difficult problems of statutory interpretation.