Hill v. Colorado

Holding content neutral a ban on "picketing," "demonstrating," "protest, education, or counseling" even though it may require the government "to review the content of the statements made"

United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Holding that, although the requesting unions' interest in obtaining the home addresses of agency employees “might allow the unions to communicate more effectively with employees, ... it would not appreciably further the citizens' right to be informed about what their government is up to”

Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

Holding that students' consent to drug tests as a condition of participating in athletics barred their privacy claims

Rowan v. Post Office Dept

Holding that a federal "do not mail" list served "the very basic right to be free from sights, sounds, and tangible matter we do not want"

Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Finding that application of California law to a class settlement was appropriate when "substantial numbers of class members are located in California"

Pioneer Ele. v. Superior Court

Concluding that there was no serious invasion of privacy where disclosure of the identity of potential class members did not involve revelation of personal or business secrets, intimate activities, or similar private information, and threatened no undue intrusion into their personal lives

Bartold v. Glendale Federal Bank

Explaining that the financing "is generally accomplished in California through a deed of trust"

Belaire-W. Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court

Denying writ petition seeking to overturn trial court order granting plaintiffs' motion to compel identification of potential class members in wage and hour lawsuit through opt-out letter; "[w]hile it is unlikely that the employees anticipated broad dissemination of their contract information . . ., that does not mean that they would wish it to be withheld from a class action plaintiff who seeks relief for violations of employment laws"

Styne v. Stevens

Stating that "a defense may be raised at any time, even if the matter alleged would be barred by a statute of limitations if asserted as the basis for affirmative relief; thus, e.g., "[o]ne sued on a contract may urge defenses that render the contract unenforceable, even if the same matters, alleged as grounds for restitution after rescission, would be untimely"

Valley Bank of Nev. v. Superior Court

Holding plaintiff bank ordered to produce documents including private customer information must notify customers to enable them to object before disclosing their information

Rule 8.512 - Ordering review