Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) Cited 800 times 82 Legal AnalysesHolding the employer is required to provide a meal period to employees, but "is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed"
Martinez v. Combs
49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010) Cited 479 times 45 Legal AnalysesHolding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"
S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations
48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) Cited 444 times 127 Legal AnalysesHolding that temporary “sharefarmers” were employees entitled to workers' compensation coverage
Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc.
171 Cal.App.4th 72 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 187 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding trial court did not err by instructing jury "[d]efendant has the obligation to prove that the [p]laintiffs were independent contractors"; holding plaintiffs "[do] not have the burden of disproving such status"
Bowman v. Wyatt
186 Cal.App.4th 286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 120 times 2 Legal AnalysesConcluding that the plaintiff did not establish that a reasonable jury could have concluded that allegedly defective brakes were "the probable cause of the accident" because "although proof of causation may be by circumstantial evidence, it must be by ' "substantial" evidence, and evidence "which leaves the determination of these essential facts in the realm of mere speculation and conjecture is insufficient" ' "
Aleksick v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
205 Cal.App.4th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 108 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that 7-Eleven did not employ its franchisees' employees despite requiring them to use its payroll services
Futrell v. Payday California, Inc.
190 Cal.App.4th 1419 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 94 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a payroll company, which handled "ministerial tasks," did not exercise control over wages, hours, or working conditions
Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey
24 Cal.4th 301 (Cal. 2000) Cited 81 times 2 Legal AnalysesFinding statute of limitations under Probate Code section 13554 more specific than section 914 and thus controlling; "Those provisions [in Probate Code section 13554 ] specifically address the liability of a married person for the debts incurred by the other spouse upon the death of that spouse , whereas Family Code section 914 merely addresses the general liability of a spouse for the debts of the other spouse incurred during marriage."
Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd.
2 Cal.3d 943 (Cal. 1970) Cited 122 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that “[t]he principal test of an employment relationship is whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired”
Section 11010 - Order Regulating Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in the Manufacturing Industry
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11010 Cited 120 times 4 Legal AnalysesRequiring employers to pay to each employee "not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period"