§Why CasetextPricing

AYALA v. ANTELOPE VALLEY NEWSPAPERS

Appellants’ Supplemental Reply Letter Brief

6 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Birks

    19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 991 times
    Holding that criminal defendant has no unilateral entitlement to instructions on lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge

  2. Martinez v. Combs

    49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 478 times   45 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"

  3. Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb

    331 U.S. 722 (1947)   Cited 849 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding the FLSA contains "no definition that solves problems as to the limits of the employer-employee relationship under the Act"

  4. S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations

    48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 444 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that temporary “sharefarmers” were employees entitled to workers' compensation coverage

  5. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty

    18 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 317 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "there is no tort remedy for the intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the cause of action to which the spoliated evidence is relevant, in cases in which, as here, the spoliation victim knows or should have known of the alleged spoliation before the trial or other decision on the merits of the underlying action."

  6. Section 11010 - Order Regulating Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in the Manufacturing Industry

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11010   Cited 120 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring employers to pay to each employee "not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period"