§Why CasetextPricing

AUGUSTUS v. ABM SECURITY SERVICES (To be called and continued to the September 29, 2016, calendar.)

Respondents’ Reply Brief on the Merits

14 Cited authorities

  1. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

    53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 800 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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"

  2. People v. Correa

    54 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 716 times
    Holding that section 654 does not bar multiple punishment for multiple violations of the same criminal statute and disapproving contrary dictum in Neal v. State of California

  3. People v. McCullough

    56 Cal.4th 589 (Cal. 2013)   Cited 633 times
    Holding that a defendant forfeits an appellate challenge to the sufficiency of evidence supporting a jail booking fee if the fee is not first challenged in the trial court

  4. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.

    40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 514 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California Labor Code claims have a three-year statute of limitations

  5. Armour Co. v. Wantock

    323 U.S. 126 (1944)   Cited 622 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that work is compensable if it is "predominantly for the employer's benefit" and noting that "an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing"

  6. Green v. State

    42 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 292 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FEHA protects only employees with a disability who can perform the essential duties of the job with reasonable accommodation

  7. Morillion v. Royal Packing

    22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 331 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that compulsory travel time on bus from departure point to work site is compensable

  8. People v. Anderson

    50 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 235 times
    Requiring payment of restitution "renders defendant accountable for the financial harm he caused and contributes to his reformation and rehabilitation"

  9. People v. Brown

    61 Cal.4th 968 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 182 times
    Finding appellant was seized in vehicle where police stopped behind his car and activated their emergency lights, and holding that in the absence of evidence that appellant did not see emergency lights, the most logical inference is such a highly visible indicator would be perceived

  10. Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Sols., Inc.

    60 Cal.4th 833 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 74 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Finding that employer restrictions on "nonemployee visitors, pets, and alcohol use" were relevant to determining control

  11. 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