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.
Read Today's Digital Edition
Place Your Legal Notices
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

Name Category Published
SLPR, L.L.C. v. San Diego Unified Port District
Plaintiffs' claims were barred because overwhelming extrinsic evidence clarified previous judgment fixing boundaries between private and public lands. 		Real Property 4DCA/1 May 27, 2020
People v. Braum
Double Jeopardy Clause protects only against multiple criminal punishments in successive proceedings for same offense. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 2DCA/5 May 27, 2020
Lindsey v. U.S.
Order 		USSC May 27, 2020
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Gavin Newsom
In evaluating a motion for an injunction pending appeal, we consider whether the moving party has demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. 		Administrative Agencies 9th May 27, 2020
Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC v. City of Oakland
City was in breach of contract because it lacked substantial evidence that proposed coal operations posed substantial health or safety danger. 		Contracts 9th May 27, 2020
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
Defendants could not invoke federal-officer removal statute because they failed to show they were acting 'under color of federal office.' 		Civil Procedure 9th May 27, 2020
City of Oakland v. BP PLC
Fact-bound state law claims, such as for public nuisance, do not require interpretations of federal law for federal question jurisdiction. 		Civil Procedure 9th May 27, 2020
Conservatorship of J.Y.
Lanterman-Petris-Short Act conservatees are similarly situated to to persons found not guilty by reason of insanity with respect to right against compelled testimony. 		Conservatorship 1DCA/2 May 26, 2020
Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC
Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees because her claims were based solely on nonprovision of meal or rest periods. 		Remedies 2DCA/8 May 26, 2020
In re E.E.
Dependency jurisdiction does not require actual neglect; rather there must be a 'substantial risk' that the child will be neglected. 		Dependency 4DCA/2 May 26, 2020
People v. Bonilla-Bray
Under Assembly Bill 865 defendant should have been provided resentencing hearing in which court takes into account mitigating factors related to military service. 		statutory_interpretation 2DCA/3 May 26, 2020
U.S. v. Dade
The 9th Circuit decides if the appellant should be released from detention due to the risks of COVID-19. The motion for release on bail pending approval is denied. Berzon dissents. 		Administrative Agencies 9th May 26, 2020
Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power Company
International comity doctrine factors weighed in favor of dismissing lawsuit because Japanese law applied and Japan had a stronger interest. 		International Law 9th May 26, 2020
People v. Smolkin
Appellant's conviction under Penal Code Section 69 based on threatening speech was unconstitutional because his speech was not 'true threat.' 		Criminal Law and Procedure 1DCA/5 May 22, 2020
Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc.
Witness observations of names and logos were not hearsay because they were relevant to prove disputed link between defendant and pipes and were not offered for truth of their content. 		Evidence CASC May 22, 2020
In re Christopher Lee White
Trial court's exercise of discretion in denying bail under California Constitution Article I, Section 12(b) did not constitute abuse of discretion. 		Criminal Law and Procedure CASC May 22, 2020
People v. Rodriguez
Prosecutors must generally avoid raising subject of future perjury prosecutions in their closing arguments to avoid improper vouching. 		Criminal Law and Procedure CASC May 22, 2020
Smith v. Baker
Petitioner successfully argued his counsel's performance was deficient but failed to show he was prejudiced by it. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 9th May 22, 2020
Modification: Pott v. Lazarin
Civil Code Section 3344.1 prohibits only commercial speech and does not extend to solicitation of funds for advocacy. 		Civil Procedure 6DCA May 22, 2020
People v. Valles
Courts have discretion to strike greater enhancements only when imposed enhancement was legally inapplicable or unsupported by evidence. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 4DCA/2 May 21, 2020
Changsha Metro Group Co., Ltd. v. Xuefeng
Proper procedure to follow for plaintiff's attorneys' fees request for opposing anti-SLAPP motion was procedure set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5 subdivision (a) and (c). 		Anti-SLAPP 4DCA/2 May 21, 2020
Modification: In re D.B.
Father's violence, verbal abuse, racism, impulsivity, and lack of insight created substantial evidence that daughter faced substantial risk of serious emotional damage. 		Dependency 2DCA/8 May 21, 2020
Lowery v. Kindren Healthcare Operating, Inc.
Trial court properly excluded expert witness because his declaration provided no explanation as to why he opined that defendant's alleged lack of untimely treatment caused decedent's death. 		Evidence 1DCA/4 May 20, 2020
Carlsbad Police Officers Assn. v. City of Carlsbad
Trial court abused its discretion in conditioning intervention on interveners striking their request for attorney's fees because they intervened as of right. 		Civil Procedure 4DCA/1 May 20, 2020
Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
No statutory provision, or 'sealing rules' authorizes appeal from order striking documents; thus, portion of court's order striking documents was not appealable. 		Civil Procedure 1DCA/4 May 20, 2020
Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose
City's actions in connection with Streambed Alteration Agreement could not be construed as 'approval of project' requiring further environmental review under CEQA. 		Environmental Law 6DCA May 20, 2020
Wexford Health v. Garrett
Order 		USSC May 19, 2020
Beers v. Barr
Order 		USSC May 19, 2020
Opati v. Republic of Sudan
Plaintiffs in federal causes of action under Section 28 U.S.C. 1605A(c) may seek punitive damages for preenactment conduct because Congress explicitly authorized it. 		statutory_interpretation USSC May 19, 2020
People v. Smith
Courts may not defer to jury's pre-'Banks/Clark' factual findings when determining petitioner's eligibility for resentencing under Penal Code Section 1170.95. 		Criminal Law and Procedure 2DCA/5 May 19, 2020
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.