Virginia v. Black
538 U.S. 343 (2003) Cited 1,023 times 10 Legal AnalysesHolding that the First Amendment protects the burning of a 25–foot cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally
Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc.
129 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 300 times 1 Legal AnalysesConcluding one plaintiff lacked standing to pursue certain claims
Planned Parenthood v. Amer. Coal. of Life
290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 167 timesHolding that use of deposition summaries was within the court's discretion under 611
City of San Jose v. Garbett
190 Cal.App.4th 526 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 57 times 1 Legal AnalysesApplying substantial evidence standard of review to civil restraining order
In re M.B.
201 Cal.App.4th 1057 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 43 timesHolding Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 authorizes social services agency to obtain a restraining order on behalf of social workers in dependency proceeding
Uss-Posco Industries v. Edwards
111 Cal.App.4th 436 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 52 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn USS-Posco Industries v. Edwards, 111 Cal.App.4th 436 (Cal.Ct.App. 2003), an appellate court examined defendant's argument that the trial court failed to consider whether his § 527.8 petition was "motivated by a desire to retaliate against Edwards for his prior complaints about racial discrimination in the UPI workplace," thereby violating his First Amendment rights of free speech.
Kaiser Foundation Hosps. v. Wilson
201 Cal.App.4th 550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 37 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 550 (Kaiser), we held that hearsay evidence is admissible at a hearing on a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO).
City of Merced v. American Motorists Ins. Co.
126 Cal.App.4th 1316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 44 timesNoting a party cannot raise new facts or claims for the first time in a reply brief
Flores v. Arroyo
56 Cal.2d 492 (Cal. 1961) Cited 114 timesIn Flores, the defendant's judgment of divorce from Flores, quieting her title to the property as against Flores, could not have preclusive effect on the plaintiff's claims against the defendant because the plaintiff was not a party to the action, or in privity with a party thereto, and she had no opportunity to address the issues raised therein.
Morson v. Superior Court of San Diego County
90 Cal.App.4th 775 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 24 times 1 Legal AnalysesDeclining to give a jury instruction under the consumer expectations test "because the allergenicity of [natural rubber latex] gloves" is beyond the common experience of ordinary users