33 Cited authorities

  1. Cel-Tech Commc'ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.

    20 Cal.4th 163 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,942 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for an act to be "unfair," it must "threaten" a violation of law or "violate the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law"
  2. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Protc

    40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 414 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California Labor Code claims have a three-year statute of limitations
  3. Martinez v. Combs

    49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 349 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"
  4. Calif. Tchrs. Assn. v. Govng. Bd. of Rialto Unified

    14 Cal.4th 627 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 307 times
    In California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 645-648 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 671, 927 P.2d 1175], the Supreme Court explained that section 44919, subdivision (b), was enacted in 1977, in an era of growing popularity of new athletics such as soccer and girls sports.
  5. Morillion v. Royal Packing Co.

    22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 261 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable
  6. Burden v. Snowden

    2 Cal.4th 556 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 299 times

    Docket No. S021885. April 30, 1992. Appeal from Superior Court of Orange County, No. 590772, William F. Rylaarsdam, Judge. COUNSEL Thomas Kathe, City Attorney, Filarsky Watt, Steve A. Filarsky, Pillsbury, Madison Sutro, Amy D. Hogue and Kevin M. Fong for Defendants and Appellants. Mayer Reeves, Thomas M. Reeves, Irving Berger, Martin J. Mayer, Whitmore, Johnson Bolanos, Richard S. Whitmore, Craig W. Patenaude and Helene L. Leichter as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. John K. York

  7. Tiernan v. Trustees of Cal. St. University Colleges

    33 Cal.3d 211 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 253 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a temporary employee's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies barred her judicial claim that the university had violated her First Amendment rights when it failed to reappoint her as an archivist
  8. People v. Roberge

    29 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 122 times
    In People v. Roberge (2003) 29 Cal.4th 979 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 861, 62 P.3d 97] (Roberge), we analyzed the word "likely" in the context of section 6600, subdivision (a)(1), which sets forth as a condition for an SVP determination that a person "has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage insexually violent criminal behavior."
  9. Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.

    17 Cal.4th 985 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 127 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Act should be interpreted to support its remedial purpose
  10. Nolan v. City of Anaheim

    33 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 101 times

    No. S113359 July 1, 2004 Appeal from the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 00CC03056, William F. McDonald, Judge. Grancell, Lebovitz, Stander, Marx and Barnes, Grancell, Lebovitz; Barnes and Reubens, Norin T. Grancell and Lawrence Kirk for Defendant and Appellant. Lemarie, Faunce, Pingel Singer, Law Office of Steven R. Pingel, Steven R. Pingel; Faunce, Singer Oatman, Edward L. Faunce and Larry J. Roberts for Plaintiff and Respondent. Peter H. Mixon, Carol McConnell and Richard B. Maness for California

  11. Section 207 - Maximum hours

    29 U.S.C. § 207   Cited 8,099 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Establishing overtime rules
  12. Section 1770

    Cal. Lab. Code § 1770   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations shall determine the general prevailing rate of per diem wages in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 1773, and the director's determination in the matter shall be final except as provided in Section 1773.4. Nothing in this article, however, shall prohibit the payment of more than the general prevailing rate of wages to any worker employed on public work. This chapter does not permit any overtime work in violation of Article 3.

  13. Section 11000 - Order Regulating the Minimum Wage

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11000   Cited 32 times
    Raising California's minimum wage to $6.25 per hour in 2001, and to $6.75 per hour, effective January 1, 2002
  14. Section 11160 - Wages, Hours and Working Conditions for Certain On-Site Occupations in the Construction, Drilling, Logging and Mining Industries

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11160   Cited 31 times

    1.Applicability of Order This order shall apply to all persons employed in the on-site occupations of construction, including, but not limited to, work involving alteration, demolition, building, excavating, renovation, remodeling, maintenance, improvement, and repair work, and work for which a contractor's license is required by the California Business and Professions Code Division 3, Chapter 9, §§ 7025 et seq .; drilling, including but not limited to, all work required to drill, establish, repair

  15. Rule 8.204 - Contents and format of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.204   Cited 2,659 times

    (a) Contents (1) Each brief must: (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears. If any part

  16. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 362 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or