Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) Cited 664 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding that students' consent to drug tests as a condition of participating in athletics barred their privacy claims
White v. Davis
13 Cal.3d 757 (Cal. 1975) Cited 291 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding in the legislative history at least four “mischiefs” the amendment was intended to address, including “the improper use of information properly obtained for a specific purpose, for example ... the disclosure of it to some third party”
Valley Bank of Nev. v. Superior Court
15 Cal.3d 652 (Cal. 1975) Cited 196 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding plaintiff bank ordered to produce documents including private customer information must notify customers to enable them to object before disclosing their information
Deyo v. Kilbourne
84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) Cited 154 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn Deyo, it was held that the materiality of questions propounded to a particular claim or a defense should be considered as a factor in assessing the propriety of entering a dismissal or a default judgment for failure to answer.
City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson
27 Cal.3d 123 (Cal. 1980) Cited 117 timesHolding ordinance limiting to five the number of unrelated people who may live in single-family zones violates fundamental right to privacy under the California Constitution
Board of Trustees v. Superior Court
119 Cal.App.3d 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) Cited 81 timesIn Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 531, a defamation action rather than an action arising from employee discipline, the court concluded that confidential written complaints by an employee against another employee fell within the "letters of reference" exclusion in section 1198.5. Given our holding here, we are not required to address defendants' assertion the "letters of reference" exclusion applies to the incident report in question and the identity of the coemployee who complained against Kaye.
City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court
33 Cal.App.3d 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973) Cited 25 timesDetermining that police personnel file was not subject to discovery after concluding that confidentiality interests of officer outweighed disclosure need of private litigants