California Supreme Court

The more expansive view of informed consent was used by the California Supreme Court in Moore v. Regents of the University of California in 1990... 

The California Supreme Court dismissed a similar case in Merril v. Nave-gar (2001), ruling that the suit was barred by a California law. The law in turn was repealed in September 2002. 

August The California Supreme Court overturns a negligence lawsuit based on the use of the Navegar TEC-9 assault pistol in the 100 California Saint shootings in 1993 in San Francisco. The court rules that the suit was barred by California law. 

The so-called line of product theory has been adopted by the California Supreme Court in Ray v. Alad Corp., which holds that where the successor corporation acquires all or substantially all of the assets of the predecessor corporation for cash and continues essentially the same manufacturing operation as the predecessor corporation, the successor remains liable for product liability claims of its predecessor corporation. The theory has been applied even though the successor corporation expressly disclaims liability during the purchase transaction. 

Supreme Court of the United States (1962). Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660. Appeal from the appellate department, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, No. 554. 

In Regents of University of California v. Bakke, the famous Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in education, the state gave as one justification for racial preferences for minorities in medical school the need to improve minority health care (Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 1978). No justice of the United States Supreme Court bought that argument, for it was... 

The lack of a non-competition clause in the agreements derived from the employer survey apparently reflect a concern that such a clause might not be enforceable. In California, for example, the Business and Professions Code 16,600 voids such clauses. This provision was recently upheld by U. S. Supreme Court (4). In other jurisdictions, there is a substantial risk that a clause prohibiting a chemist from engaging in his profession with another employer would be ruled unenforceable as an unconscionable contract of adhesion. It seems the trend of the law is to recognize the doctrine of contracts of adhesion as being unenforceable. 

October 4 The U.S. Supreme Court declines to review a 9th Circuit appeals court decision uploading the Alameda County, California, ban on gun shows at county fairgrounds. The lower court had said that neither the First nor the Second Amendment had been violated by the ban. 

Medical Use of Marijuana United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, No. 00-151, (2001) U.S. v. Rosenthal, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2003 Raich v. Ashcroft, U.S. Supreme Court, 03-15481 (2003)... 

After receiving an anonymous tip that Ciraolo was growing marijuana, police in Santa Clara, California, tried to look into his backyard. If they could see the plants, they could get a search warrant. However, the fence around the yard was too high, so they hired a private plane and flew over the house at an altitude of 1,000 feet. Being able to confirm the presence of marijuana plants, they secured a search warrant and then arrested Ciraolo, who pled guilty to cultivation of marijuana. An appeals court, however, ruled that the fly-over constituted an illegal search and reversed Ciraolo s conviction. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. 

In Schmerber v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds blood alcohol tests for suspected drunken drivers, provided authorities have clear indications that evidence will be found. 

In a defeat for medical marijuana advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the federal Controlled Substances Act precludes a medical necessity defense on the part of the Oakland, California, Cannabis Buyers Club. February Officials at the popular drug education program DARE admit that some of the techniques they have been using may be ineffective. They begin a process of reviewing research and revising the curriculum. 

U.S. Supreme Court ruled (unanimously) in United States vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative that the cooperatives permitted under California law to sell marijuana to medical patients who had a physician s approval to use the drug were unconstitutional under federal law. 

One of the justices, Stephen G. Breyer, declined to rule on the case because his brother, a U.S. district judge, had issued two of the original rulings that barred California cannabis buyers cooperatives from distributing marijuana. These rulings started the chain of events that brought the case to the Supreme Court. 

The recommendations herein are not based on the view that criminal treatment of use or simple possession is unconstitutional. It is recognized that policy and constitutional considerations may tend to merge. However, the recommendations are based on considerations of what is believed to be proper policy. While it is possible to argue that some of the reasoning Robinson v. California (5) indicates that punishment for use or even simple possession is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court there specifically stated that possession may still be treated as a crime (6). As to use, it was less clear (7). Most States and lower Federal courts have narrowly read Robinson and have held that use may still be made criminal (8). 

The False Claims Act A Primer, http //www.justice.gov/sites/ default/files/civiFlegacy/201 l/04/22/C-FRAUDS FCA Primer.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Basic Information, http //www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html U.S. District Court, Central District of California, United States of America ex rel Nira Schwartz, Plaintiff v. TRW, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, and Boeing N. America, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants (1996), Plaintiff s Fourth Amended Complaint, Case No. CV 96-3605 CM (RMCx), United States District Court, Central District of California, http //www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news01/schwartz.pdf U.S. Supreme Court (2006), 547 U.S. 410, Garcetti v. Ceballos. 

On November 10, 1983, when handing down the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel found substantial support in the record that the government deliberately omitted relevant information and provided misleading information to the Supreme Court. The judicial process is seriously impaired, she concluded, when the government s law enforcement officers violate their ethical obligations to the court, and she vacated Korematsu s wartime conviction. Never before had any judge vacated a criminal conviction upheld by the Supreme Court on a final appeal. Peter Irons, ed.. Justice Delayed The Record of the Japanese American Internment Cases (Middletown, Conn. Wesleyan University Press, 1989), pp. 125-249. 

A criminalist in California was assigned to rework a murder investigation originally tried in the early 1960s in 1987 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned... 

---