§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. S.C. (SAHLOLBEI)

Petitioner’s Petition for Review

27 Cited authorities

  1. Martinez v. Combs

    49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 478 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"

  2. S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations

    48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 444 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that temporary “sharefarmers” were employees entitled to workers' compensation coverage

  3. Reynolds v. Bement

    36 Cal.4th 1075 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 273 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statutes are construed in light of the common law unless the Legislature clearly and unequivocally indicates otherwise

  4. Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc.

    59 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 167 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding trial court's finding that "substantial variations in control exist" is "sufficient to justify denying class certification and thus obviate any need for further inquiry [into secondary factors]"

  5. Lexin v. Superior Court (People)

    47 Cal.4th 1050 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 165 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the composition of retirement boards

  6. People v. Honig

    48 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 197 times
    Finding employment and remuneration of official's wife by nonprofit organization benefiting from government contract a financial interest

  7. Vikco Ins. Services, Inc. v. Ohio Indemnity Co.

    70 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 89 times
    Finding that a private right of action under a criminal statute exists only where the Legislature has made clear through the statute or its history that it intended to do so

  8. People V. Wong

    186 Cal.App.4th 1433 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 42 times

    No. B212580. July 28, 2010. Appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BA320190, Michael M. Johnson, Judge.) Jonathan P. Milberg for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. OPINION ASHMANN-GERST, J. The story of Leland Wong (Wong) is one of graft and hubris. Wrongly

  9. Hub City Solid Waste Services, Inc. v. City of Compton

    186 Cal.App.4th 1114 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 42 times
    In Hub City Solid Waste Services, Inc. v. City of Compton (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1114, Division Four of this court held that an independent contractor who advised city staff regarding waste management could be held liable under Government Code section 1090.

  10. Salazar v. Superior Court of Monterey County

    83 Cal.App.4th 840 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that Mendella required proof of criminal street gang enhancement at preliminary hearing

  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,834 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  12. 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