CA Pub. Decisions

A decision regarding disputes between the City and County of San Francisco (the City) and unions representing firefighters and other public safety officers, after bargaining to impasse, to be submitted to binding arbitration.

A decision regarding the proper interpretation of California Constitution, article XVIII, section 1, amending the Constitution by a vote of the people,

A decision regarding (1) allowing the Legislature, after proposing a constitutional amendment or revision, to â€

A decision regarding â€

A decision wherein held â€

A decision regarding an injunction against holding the election.

A decision wherein held a punitive damage award â€

Defendants who initially agreed to jury instruction, then objected to it during deliberations, could not under doctrine of invited error object on appeal. Where defense in medical malpractice action based on alleged misdiagnosis contended that defendant physician did not cause harm to plaintiff because correct diagnosis would not have altered subsequent course of treatment, trial court did not err and did not prejudice defendant by instructing on "substantial factor" rather than "but for" test of causation. In calculating noneconomic damages, trial court correctly reduced noneconomic verdict to the statutory MICRA maximum of $250,000 and then reduced it further under Proposition 51 to reflect the percentage of fault attributed to settlement plaintiffs received. Where resulting amount was less than plaintiffs' statutory offer of settlement, they could not recover additional costs under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 998.

Defendants who initially agreed to jury instruction, then objected to it during deliberations, could not under doctrine of invited error object on appeal. Where defense in medical malpractice action based on alleged misdiagnosis contended that defendant physician did not cause harm to plaintiff because correct diagnosis would not have altered subsequent course of treatment, trial court did not err and did not prejudice defendant by instructing on "substantial factor" rather than "but for" test of causation. In calculating noneconomic damages, trial court correctly reduced noneconomic verdict to the statutory MICRA maximum of $250,000 and then reduced it further under Proposition 51 to reflect the percentage of fault attributed to settlement plaintiffs received. Where resulting amount was less than plaintiffs' statutory offer of settlement, they could not recover additional costs under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 998.

Existence of a tax deficiency is an element of the offense of felony income tax evasion. Even where evidence of defendant's taxable income was strong, trial court's failure to instruct jury that it had to find existence of a deficiency was not harmless error.

In action alleging that persons unknown caused wrongful publication of plaintiff's secret plans on the Internet, trial court's denial of protective orders sought by publishers of news Web sites where information appeared and e-mail provider for site after they had been subpoenaed was error because (1) the subpoena to the e-mail service provider cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act; (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from publishers would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter's shield; and (3) discovery of publishers' sources is also barred by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources.

In action alleging that persons unknown caused wrongful publication of plaintiff's secret plans on the Internet, trial court's denial of protective orders sought by publishers of news Web sites where information appeared and e-mail provider for site after they had been subpoenaed was error because (1) the subpoena to the e-mail service provider cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act; (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from publishers would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter's shield; and (3) discovery of publishers' sources is also barred by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources.

In action alleging that persons unknown caused wrongful publication of plaintiff's secret plans on the Internet, trial court's denial of protective orders sought by publishers of news Web sites where information appeared and e-mail provider for site after they had been subpoenaed was error because (1) the subpoena to the e-mail service provider cannot be enforced consistent with the plain terms of the federal Stored Communications Act; (2) any subpoenas seeking unpublished information from publishers would be unenforceable through contempt proceedings in light of the California reporter's shield; and (3) discovery of publishers' sources is also barred by the conditional constitutional privilege against compulsory disclosure of confidential sources.

A "cold hit" from a DNA database where the suspect is first identified by a database search or "trawl" is not subject to the Kelly-Frye standard of admissibility when it is used merely to identify a possible suspect. Warrantless collection of blood samples and saliva from inmate convicted of sexual offense under aggravated circumstances for use in DNA database does not violate Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.