§Why CasetextPricing

TROESTER v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION

Appellant’s Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. In re Dannenberg

    34 Cal.4th 1061 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 650 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a California prisoner has no right to a release date prior to being deemed suitable for parole because state law does not provide such a right

  2. Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.

    20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 340 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a court evaluates if an employee was primarily engaged in exempt duties for purposes of the administrative exemption to overtime pay, it must consider "how the employee actually spends his or her time" and also "whether the employee's practice diverges from the employer's realistic expectations"

  3. 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

  4. Lindow v. United States

    738 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir. 1984)   Cited 266 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because of, inter alia, the administrative difficulty in deciphering the amount of time spent on compensable rather than social activities, seven to eight minutes per day spent by employees reading a log book and exchanging information was de minimis

  5. Rutti v. Lojack Corp.

    596 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 88 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an alarm installation technician was not entitled to compensation for the time he spent driving an employer owned vehicle from his home to his first installation even though the employer required the technician to drive straight to and from work, avoid carrying passengers, and have his cell phone on during his commute

  6. 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

  7. See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (Pamela Silva)

    210 Cal.App.4th 889 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 66 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Adopting rounding policy concluding that the policies underlying the federal regulation on rounding "apply equally to the employee-protective policies embodied in California labor law"

  8. Gomez v. Lincare, Inc.

    173 Cal.App.4th 508 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 65 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Looking to the Ninth Circuit's test to determine whether an employee was free to engage in personal activities while on call

  9. Aguilar v. Association for Retarded Citizens

    234 Cal.App.3d 21 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 66 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that time employees are required to be on premises is included in hours worked

  10. City of San Diego v. Haas

    207 Cal.App.4th 472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 22 times

    No. D058225. 2012-06-29 The CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard HAAS et al., Defendants and Appellants. Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, San Diego, John Morris and Victoria E. Fuller for Defendant and Appellant Richard Haas. Mayer Mangan and Katherine Mayer Mangan for Defendant and Appellant George G. Schaefer. NARES Background: City brought action against union and a class of employees for declaratory judgment that they were ineligible for certain pension benefits. The Superior Court

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

    Cal. R. 8.548   Cited 210 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