12 Cited authorities

Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co.
33 Cal.4th 780 (Cal. 2004) Cited 873 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, "because the trial court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, it abused its discretion"
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 305 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice . . . only if a reasonable accommodation existed."
Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
74 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 381 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a finite leave of absence has been considered to be a reasonable accommodation under ADA, provided it is likely that following the leave the employee would be able to perform his or her duties"
Green v. State
42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007) Cited 296 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the FEHA protects only employees with a disability who can perform the essential duties of the job with reasonable accommodation
Garcia v. Conmed Corp.
204 Cal.App.4th 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 72 times
In Garcia, there was no prejudice where the offending arguments were brief, there was a "logical path" to the jury's verdict, and the trial court gave ameliorating instructions.
Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc.
81 Cal.App.4th 287 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 83 times
In Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 303, the jury found the defendant was not liable, but then assigned it 40 percent of the fault for the plaintiff's injuries, which, unlike the liability and damage findings here, is logically inconsistent.
Dominguez v. Pantalone
212 Cal.App.3d 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) Cited 49 times
In Dominguez, the Defendant alleged that Plaintiff's counsel committed prejudicial misconduct by attempting, on several occasions throughout the trial, to introduce to the jury the investigating officer's opinion of fault after the trial court expressed doubts as to the opinion's admissibility.
Russell v. Dopp
36 Cal.App.4th 765 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 38 times
Reversing large judgment obtained by plaintiff because two defendants were improperly represented by unauthorized person
Vomaska v. City of San Diego
55 Cal.App.4th 905 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 31 times
In Vomaska v. City of San Diego (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 905, the Court of Appeal held "a jury's decision on a verdict 10 to 15 minutes after beginning deliberations, before receiving exhibits, and without discussing the case before their vote, did not deprive a party of its constitutional right to a jury trial."
Lauren H. v. Kannappan
96 Cal.App.4th 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 20 times
F034098 Filed March 4, 2002 Certified for Partial Publication Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of Part I. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, No. 236217, Robert Anspach, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of David Drexler and David Drexler for Plaintiffs and Appellants. LeBeau, Thelen, Lampe, McIntosh Crear, Dennis R. Thelen and W. Steven Shayer for Defendants and Respondents. DIBIASO, Acting
Section 13
Cal. Const. art. VI § 13 Cited 4,609 times
Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

Noreen Sottosanti vs. State of California Edd

12 Cited authorities

Holding that, "because the trial court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence, it abused its discretion"

Holding that "an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice . . . only if a reasonable accommodation existed."

Holding that "a finite leave of absence has been considered to be a reasonable accommodation under ADA, provided it is likely that following the leave the employee would be able to perform his or her duties"

Holding that the FEHA protects only employees with a disability who can perform the essential duties of the job with reasonable accommodation

In Garcia, there was no prejudice where the offending arguments were brief, there was a "logical path" to the jury's verdict, and the trial court gave ameliorating instructions.

In Mendoza v. Club Car, Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 287, 303, the jury found the defendant was not liable, but then assigned it 40 percent of the fault for the plaintiff's injuries, which, unlike the liability and damage findings here, is logically inconsistent.

In Dominguez, the Defendant alleged that Plaintiff's counsel committed prejudicial misconduct by attempting, on several occasions throughout the trial, to introduce to the jury the investigating officer's opinion of fault after the trial court expressed doubts as to the opinion's admissibility.

Reversing large judgment obtained by plaintiff because two defendants were improperly represented by unauthorized person

Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"