Pierce v. Underwood

Holding that when Congress reenacts a statute without changing its language, and when there is no indication that “Congress thought it was doing anything ... except reenacting and making permanent” the earlier legislation, a court should not give weight to legislative history pertaining to the reenactment

Lungren v. Deukmejian

Stating that the "plain meaning" rule "does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose"; "[l]iteral construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute" – i.e. , "[t]he intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act"

People ex Rel. Dept., Corps. v. Speedee O. Chg. Sys

Holding that where trial court resolved disputed facts, appellate courts review for abuse of discretion, but where there are no disputed factual issues, appellate courts review the trial court's determination as a question of law

In re Charlisse C

Reversing and remanding for further proceedings where "the parties and the [trial] court focused on the wrong legal standards," the Supreme Court's decision was "new in some respects," and further information may have been available to the parties but not presented

City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions Inc.

Holding Pen. Code, § 1424 inapplicable to civil action filed by city attorney

State Department of Public Health v. Superior Court (Center for Investigative Reporting)

Rejecting the lower court's "harmonization efforts" because they "did not give full effect" to the statutes at issue

Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.

Holding counsel needed to cease document review once it became apparent the document contained attorney impressions, conclusions, opinions, legal research and/or theories

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. WPS, Inc.

Concluding that counsel "should have not been sanctioned for engaging in conduct condemned by an ABA formal opinion, but which has not been condemned by any decision, statute, or Rule of Professional Conduct applicable in this state" and reversing sanctions order

Oxy Resources California LLC v. Superior Court

Explaining that " common interest agreement, such as the Joint Defense Agreement, strengthens the case against waiver, but such an agreement is neither a requirement nor a guarantee"

BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court

Holding that a court is "not reviewing the merits of a fraud cause of action" but is instead "reviewing the merits of a discovery order to determine if [a party] will have access to communications between [the opposing party] and its attorneys to aid [the party] in proving its causes of action."

Rule 2.251 - Electronic service