For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices or call 213-229-5424.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Enewsletter Sign-up
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court

REPLACEMENT COPY OF TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2025

Name Category Published
Frankland v. Etehad
No Elder Abuse Act violation against nursing facility physician when physician's interaction with patient was limited, not amounting to a "robust" caregiver relationship as required by the statute. 		Health Care, Torts 2DCA/5 Aug. 12, 2025
Ramirez v. McCormack
Because plaintiff's claims against defendant attorney involved litigation-related speech, trial court erred in denying defendant attorney's anti-SLAPP motion. 		Attorneys, Anti-SLAPP 2DCA/8 Aug. 12, 2025
Sandton Agriculture Investments III, LLC v. 4-S Ranch Partners, LLC
Former landowner was not entitled to floodwater following land foreclosure, as it was part of the real property. 		Water Rights 5DCA Aug. 12, 2025
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Barry
Sales agents' actions--in promoting and selling life settlements' fractional interests--met the Security Exchange Act's definition of "securities" and thus violated securities laws. 		Securities 9th Aug. 12, 2025
The Satanic Temple v. Labrador
Religious group lacked either associational or organizational standing when it failed to identify specific members injured by Idaho's anti-abortion law. 		Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law 9th Aug. 12, 2025
Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (Golden State Foods Corp.)
While the FAA does not preempt CCP section 1281.98 (governing payment of arbitration fees), the statute does not abrogate longstanding principles preventing unjust forfeitures of contractual rights, e.g., excusable neglect. 		Arbitration CASC Aug. 12, 2025
Birdsall v. Helfet
Where there were "outward manifestations" presenting triable issues of material fact surrounding whether the parties' consented to contract, granting summary adjudication was error. 		Contracts, Insurance 1DCA/2 Aug. 13, 2025
Bieganski v. Shinn
Because Arizona's statutory scheme shifted the burden of proving an essential element of the sexual molestation crime, it unconstitutionally violated the Due Process Clause. 		Criminal Law and Procedure, Habeas Corpus 9th Aug. 13, 2025
Wyatt B. v. Kotek
District court erred in finding that foster children in Oregon's legal but not physical custody lacked substantive due process interests. 		Dependency, Constitutional Law 9th Aug. 13, 2025
Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc.
The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (unlike the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act) does not require a plaintiff to identify trade secrets "with reasonable particularity" before discovery, and federal courts should use an iterative process to sufficiently identify trade secrets. 		Intellectual Property 9th Aug. 13, 2025
Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
Despite being an atypical compensation plan, hauling company's driver compensation scheme met California's hybrid employee compensation plan minimum wage requirements. 		Employment Law 9th Aug. 13, 2025
True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
Order 		9th Aug. 13, 2025
Novalpina Capital Partners I GP S.A.R.L. v. Read
Documents produced "for use" in specific foreign proceedings under 28 U.S.C. section 1782 may be used in other proceedings, absent an order to the contrary. 		Civil Procedure 9th Aug. 13, 2025
Engilis v. Monsanto Company
District court properly excluded expert witness's opinion that plaintiff's exposure to Roundup likely caused blood cancer because expert's differential etiology was unreliable. 		Evidence 9th Aug. 13, 2025
Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com.
Public Utilities Commission's interpretation of the Public Utilities Code was no longer entitled to uniquely deferential standard of review given legislation expanding judicial review of most Commission decisions. 		Utilities CASC Aug. 8, 2025
In re TBH19, LLC
Bankruptcy court properly granted chapter 7 trustee's fee application even though the requested compensation exceeded the proposed distribution to unsecured creditors. 		Bankruptcy BAP Aug. 11, 2025
Camarillo Sanitary District v. State Water Resources Control Board
State Water Board could not utilize Test of Significant Toxicity introduced, but not adopted, by the Environmental Protection Agency to measure water toxicity. 		Environmental Law 5DCA Aug. 7, 2025
People v. Fleming
Where trial court's language did not "clearly indicate" that it would have imposed the upper sentence, case was remanded for resentencing. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 2DCA/6 Aug. 7, 2025
People v. Harlow
Defendant was eligible for mental health diversion even though his diagnoses came three years after offense because the diagnoses were made within the window established by the Legislature. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 4DCA/1 Aug. 7, 2025
Munoz v. The Regents of the University of California
Hypothetical risk of federal prosecution did not justify University of California's facially discriminatory policy of prohibiting employment of undocumented students. 		Employment Discrimination, Education 1DCA/4 Aug. 7, 2025
Powell v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Securities Exchange Commission's policy that it will not settle a civil enforcement action unless defendant agrees not to publicly deny the allegations against him does not facially violate the First Amendment. 		Securities, Constitutional Law 9th Aug. 7, 2025
Hirdman v. Charter Communications, LLC
Because plaintiff's "exempt employee" status was based on a specific Labor Code section, calculating his sick pay using Labor Code section 246(l)(3)'s method for exempt employees was proper. 		Employment Law 4DCA/1 Aug. 6, 2025
McMahon v. World Vision, Inc.
Ministerial exception barred plaintiff's employment discrimination claims because she, as a customer service representative, performed a "key religious function" when interfacing with potential donors. 		Employment Discrimination, Constitutional Law 9th Aug. 6, 2025
Perdomo v. Noem
Order 		9th Aug. 5, 2025
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump
Order 		9th Aug. 5, 2025
Platt v. Sodexo, S.A.
Employer's email linking to lengthy document with hidden arbitration agreement was insufficient to establish that ERISA participant agreed to arbitrate. 		Arbitration, ERISA 9th Aug. 5, 2025
U.S. v. Bradford
Indictment was not duplicitous where its counts merely described multiple means by which the defendant could commit a single crime rather than including multiple offenses in a single count. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 9th Aug. 5, 2025
Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson
Newspapers' Joint Operating Agreement was unlawful and thus unenforceable under the Newspaper Preservation Act because it lacked prior approval by the Attorney General. 		Antitrust 9th Aug. 5, 2025
Lister v. City of Las Vegas
Despite jury's inconsistent verdict finding defendant City not liable for employment discrimination yet awarding plaintiff employee damages, district court was not required to resubmit verdict to clarify decision. 		Civil Procedure, Employment Discrimination 9th Aug. 5, 2025
In re Ja.O.
Assembly Bill No. 81 clarified that county welfare department's duty to perform extended-family inquiry into child's possible native heritage under the Indian Child Welfare Act is required in all cases. 		Dependency CASC Aug. 5, 2025
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.