Steele v. L. N.R. Co.
323 U.S. 192 (1944) Cited 958 timesHolding that a labor organization must represent all members of a "craft or class of employees . . . regardless of their union affiliations or want of them"
Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. Tel. Co.
24 Cal.3d 458 (Cal. 1979) Cited 174 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that allegations can reasonably be construed as defendant having adopted a policy where "[p]laintiffs allege that [defendant] discriminates against 'manifest' homosexuals and against persons who make 'an issue of their homosexuality. . . .'"
Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Soc. of Orthodontists
12 Cal.3d 541 (Cal. 1974) Cited 124 timesHolding "whenever a private association is legally required to refrain from arbitrary action, the association's action must be substantively rational and procedurally fair"
Gerhard v. Stephens
68 Cal.2d 864 (Cal. 1968) Cited 137 timesHolding that the quiet title plaintiff "can prevail only by the establishment of his own title and not by reliance upon a weakness in defendant's title" such that the plaintiff "must prove a title in himself superior to that of defendant"
Bearden v. U.S. Borax, Inc.
138 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 37 times 3 Legal AnalysesIn Bearden, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th 429 our colleagues in Division Four reviewed an order dismissing the complaint filed by six mine workers against their employer, U.S. Borax, for, among other alleged Labor Code violations, its failure to allow a second meal period during the 12-hour shifts they were working.
J.R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
26 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1979) Cited 78 timesIn J. R. Norton, we held that that the Board cannot award make-whole relief as a per se remedy for technical refusals to bargain.
Montebello Rose Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations
119 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) Cited 65 timesAffirming ALRB's conclusion that a certified union continues to enjoy that status after the initial certification year expires
James v. Marinship Corp.
25 Cal.2d 721 (Cal. 1944) Cited 161 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn James v. Marinship Corp., 25 Cal.2d 721, 155 P.2d 329, the California Supreme Court held that a union could not exclude Negroes from membership in the union when at the same time there was a closed shop in the industry.
County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co.
32 Cal.2d 378 (Cal. 1948) Cited 95 timesHolding that California's counterpart to Article V was a "continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the highways"
United Farm Wkrs. of Am. v. Agric. Labor Rel. Bd.
41 Cal.App.4th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 14 timesDocket Nos. B080261, B081628. December 21, 1995. Page 304 COUNSEL Marcos Camacho, Thomas Patrick Lynch, Mary Mecartney and Rees Lloyd, for Petitioners in No. B080261 and Real Parties in Interest in No. B081628. Louise H. Renne, City Attorney (San Francisco), Jonathan V. Holtzman, Vicki A. Clayton, Deputy City Attorneys, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners in No. B080261 and Real Parties in Interest in No. B081628. Morgan, Lewis Bockius, Joseph E. Herman, Keith D. Grossman, Richard C. Rybicki
Section 1148 - Federal law
Cal. Lab. Code § 1148 Cited 67 timesImplementing the ALRA, the Board follows applicable NLRA precedents
Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice
Cal. R. 8.520 Cited 3,146 times(a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or