§Why CasetextPricing

SHAW v. S.C. (THC-ORANGE COUNTY, INC.)

Real Parties in Interest, THC-Orange County, Inc., Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc., Kindred Hospitals West, LLC, Kindred Healthcare, Inc., and Jeffrey Sopko, Petition of Review

28 Cited authorities

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 5,921 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

  2. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment Housing Com

    43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 888 times
    Holding that the statute did not extend to cover remedies that were “different in kind from the enumerated remedies,” because “ more reasonable reading of the phrase ‘including, but not limited to,’ ... permitting only additional corrective remedies comports with the statutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noscitur a sociis.”

  3. Munson v. Del Taco, Inc.

    46 Cal.4th 661 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 331 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff need not prove intentional discrimination to recover for an ADA violation under the Unruh Act

  4. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV

    52 Cal.3d 1142 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 453 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff seeking to establish a case under the Unruh Act must plead and prove intentional discrimination in public accommodations in violation of the terms of the Act

  5. Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. L.A. Cnty. Office of Educ.

    57 Cal.4th 197 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 163 times
    Holding that the procedural protections for charter revocations under Proposition 39 and its implementing regulations "comport with due process"

  6. McClung v. Employment Development Dept.

    34 Cal.4th 467 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 173 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FEHA imposes personal liability for harassment on both supervisory and non-supervisory employees

  7. Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals

    58 Cal.4th 655 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 102 times   7 Legal Analyses
    In Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals, 318 P.3d 833 (Cal. 2014), a physician brought a statutory health care facility whistleblower claim against a hospital after it terminated his staff privileges; he alleged the hospital's action constituted retaliation for his reports of substandard performance by hospital nurses.

  8. Dipirro v. Bondo Corp.

    153 Cal.App.4th 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 91 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]here, as here, the [state environmental-enforcement] statute has delegated the assessment of civil penalties in accordance with a highly discretionary calculation that takes into account multiple factors, this is the kind of calculation traditionally performed by judges rather than a jury, and does not require a jury trial"

  9. Ginns v. Savage

    61 Cal.2d 520 (Cal. 1964)   Cited 307 times
    In Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 39 Cal.Rptr. 377, 393 P.2d 689, the Real Estate Commissioner (commissioner), after notice and a hearing, revoked the plaintiff's license as a real estate broker.

  10. Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd.

    167 Cal.App.4th 1187 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 61 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Sarti, a woman (Sarti) who suffered a foodborne illness (she was tested positive for campylobacter bacteria) sued a restaurant (Salt Creek Grille) where she had previously eaten a raw tuna appetizer and raw vegetables.

  11. Section 2000e-3 - Other unlawful employment practices

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3   Cited 14,424 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting retaliation against employees who "oppos[e] any [unlawful] practice"

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)