11 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Roberts

    2 Cal.4th 271 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 282 times
    Concluding that the record and the jury's "careful consideration of its penalty verdict" demonstrated that the defendant received an individualized determination of culpability
  2. People v. Scott

    58 Cal.4th 1415 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 143 times
    Concluding in the context of similar language in Proposition 36 that “a defendant is ‘sentenced’ when a judgment imposing punishment is pronounced even if execution of the sentence is then suspended”
  3. Klein v. U.S.

    537 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that "the Ninth Circuit is bound by the California Supreme Court's interpretation of California law" with respect to a certified question
  4. Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

    739 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 7 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Kilby, the court explained that the wage order does not include a definition of the phrase "nature of the work" as that phrase appears in subdivision 14 of the wage order.
  5. Section 1858

    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1858   Cited 621 times
    Interpreting statutes
  6. Section 512

    Cal. Lab. Code § 512   Cited 301 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Imposing these same meal break rules for all employees unless otherwise exempted
  7. Section 551

    Cal. Lab. Code § 551   Cited 7 times   18 Legal Analyses

    Every person employed in any occupation of labor is entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven. Ca. Lab. Code § 551

  8. Section 552

    Cal. Lab. Code § 552   Cited 4 times   4 Legal Analyses

    No employer of labor shall cause his employees to work more than six days in seven. Ca. Lab. Code § 552

  9. Section 556

    Cal. Lab. Code § 556   Cited 2 times   7 Legal Analyses

    Sections 551 and 552 shall not apply to any employer or employee when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof. Ca. Lab. Code § 556 EFFECTIVE 1/1/2000. Amended July 21, 1999 (Bill Number: AB 60) (Chapter 134). EFFECTIVE 1/1/2000. Amended July 21, 1999 (Bill Number: AB 60) (Chapter 134). EFFECTIVE 1/1/2000. Amended July 21, 1999 (Bill Number: AB 60) (Chapter 134). EFFECTIVE 1/1/2000. Amended July 21, 1999 (Bill Number: AB 60) (Chapter 134)

  10. Section 513

    Cal. Lab. Code § 513

    If an employer approves a written request of an employee to make up work time that is or would be lost as a result of a personal obligation of the employee, the hours of that makeup work time, if performed in the same workweek in which the work time was lost, may not be counted towards computing the total number of hours worked in a day for purposes of the overtime requirements specified in Section 510 or 511, except for hours in excess of 11 hours of work in one day or 40 hours in one workweek.

  11. Rule 8.548 - Decision on request of a court of another jurisdiction

    Cal. R. 8.548   Cited 158 times

    (a)Request for decision On request of the United States Supreme Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the court of last resort of any state, territory, or commonwealth, the Supreme Court may decide a question of California law if: (1) The decision could determine the outcome of a matter pending in the requesting court; and (2) There is no controlling precedent. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b)Form and contents of request The request must take the form of an order of the requesting