Second District holds that a hospital’s expired 2004 contract with Kaiser was admissible in a quantum meruit dispute over emergency reimbursement and that prejudgment interest in such actions is 7 percent, not 10 percent.
Second District holds that evidence of prior branch failures from same-species street trees in the same neighborhood is admissible to prove a city’s notice of a dangerous condition under Government Code section 835.
First District affirms UC Berkeley’s expulsion of a student in a non-Title IX sexual misconduct case, holding that any limit on direct cross-examination at the campus hearing was harmless given the prior criminal preliminary hearing.
Second District holds that a recorded golf cart easement was not abandoned when the country club rerouted the path and that the easement was prescriptively expanded to include hedge and landscaping maintenance.
Fourth District affirms a pet custody order but imposes $5,000 in sanctions on counsel for repeatedly citing AI-generated fake cases and reports the conduct to the State Bar of California.
Second District affirms a $51 million asbestos-talc verdict against Avon Products and holds that Avon’s appellate brief forfeited its sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge by failing to fairly summarize the trial evidence.
Third District holds plaintiffs who lost their CEQA challenge cannot recover catalyst-theory attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 when the agency’s later action came years after final defeat in court.
Fourth District holds that even under independent judgment review, a trial court cannot uphold a Section 8 termination on grounds the housing authority’s hearing officer never adjudicated.
First District holds that an arbitrator’s merits-based finding that an employee did not suffer Labor Code violations preclusively destroys the same employee’s PAGA standing in the companion court action.
First District holds the First Amendment ministerial exception does not categorically bar a Zen Center worker’s wage-and-hour claims, but Labor Code section 98.2’s appeal bond is required only of the employing entity, not individuals also liable under section 558.1.