6 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Birks

    19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 578 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 347 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"
  3. Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb

    331 U.S. 722 (1947)   Cited 724 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a job whose profits are based on efficiency is "more like piecework than an enterprise that actually depended for success upon the initiative, judgment or foresight of the typical independent contractor"
  4. S.G. Borello Sons v. Department of Industrial Relations

    48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 320 times   84 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 240 times   1 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 78 times   4 Legal Analyses

    1.Applicability of Order This order shall apply to all persons employed in the manufacturing industry whether paid on a time, piece rate, commission, or other basis, except that: (A) Provisions of Sections 3 through 12 of this order shall not apply to persons employed in administrative, executive, or professional capacities. The following requirements shall apply in determining whether an employee's duties meet the test to qualify for an exemption from those sections: (1) Executive Exemption A person