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
Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc.
Order 		Aug. 12, 2011
Hayes v. County of San Diego
Order 		Aug. 12, 2011
Harris (People ex rel.) v. PAC Anchor Transportation
Order 		Aug. 12, 2011
DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara
Order 		Aug. 12, 2011
Diaz v. Bukey
Order 		Aug. 12, 2011
People v. Nguyen
Order 		Aug. 12, 2011
Plancich v. United Parcel Service Inc.
In action for overtime compensation, Labor Code Section 1194 does not preclude prevailing employers from recovering costs. 		Civil Procedure Aug. 12, 2011
Foust v. San Jose Construction Co. Inc.
Court refuses to reconsider appeal where appellant fails to carry burden of providing record on appeal or any prejudicial error. 		Civil Procedure Aug. 11, 2011
Soriano-Vino v. Holder
Information obtained from permanent residency card, and not application for Special Agricultural Workers program, does not violate confidentiality provision under program. 		Immigration Aug. 11, 2011
Fairbank v. Ayers
Defendant’s right to counsel is not violated when jail inmate who received incriminating notes from defendant was not acting under government’s guise. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Aug. 11, 2011
Viewtech Inc. v. United States
Assessed taxpayer and his fiduciary lack standing to challenge summons issued to bank by Internal Revenue Service. 		Taxation Aug. 11, 2011
Woods v. Sinclair
Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right is not violated where he expresses frustration over process but otherwise fails to unequivocally invoke right to self-representation. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Aug. 11, 2011
McComish v. Bennett
Order 		Aug. 11, 2011
Brandt v. American Bankers Insurance Co. of Florida
Finding of defendant’s culpability allows, but does not require, court to deny defendant’s motion to set aside default judgment. 		Civil Procedure Aug. 11, 2011
City of Industry v. City of Fillmore
City, as ‘real party in interest,’ has standing to sue for another’s city’s alleged diversion of taxes and need not establish taxpayer standing. 		Government Aug. 11, 2011
Corrales v. Corrales
Court relies on erroneous buyout theory where partnership ceases to exist by law when partner of a two-person partnership withdrew from partnership. 		Corporations Aug. 11, 2011
Boschma v. Home Loan Center Inc.
Borrowers adequately plead material facts for fraud where loan documents fail to clearly state that payments under schedule would definitely result in negative amortization. 		Civil Procedure Aug. 11, 2011
DISH Network Corp. v. FCC
Court properly finds statute adjusting timetable for providing high-definition formatted programming is content-neutral restriction. 		Constitutional Law Aug. 10, 2011
Pitts v. Terrible Herbst Inc.
Defendant’s unaccepted offer to satisfy individual claim made before plaintiff filed motion for class certification does not moot case, if plaintiff may still file timely motion. 		Civil Procedure Aug. 10, 2011
Brown v. Crandall
County owes duty to provide medical care where plaintiff is medically indigent, regardless of previous ability to pay for private insurance. 		Government Aug. 10, 2011
Professional Engineers in California Government v. Dept. of Transportation
CalTrans is not required to perform actual work on public-private partnership project under amendment to Streets and Highway Code Section 143. 		Government Aug. 10, 2011
Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co.
After-acquired-evidence doctrine bars employee’s claims where employer would have refused to hire employee based on use of counterfeit Social Security card. 		Employment Law Aug. 10, 2011
Pantoja v. Anton
‘Me-too’ evidence is erroneously excluded where acts of defendant’s harassment show discriminatory or biased intent based on gender. 		Employment Law Aug. 10, 2011
People v. Battle
Use of peremptory challenge to strike African-American prospective juror does not violate defendant's rights because record did not show discriminatory intent. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Aug. 10, 2011
H.C., a Minor
Parent does not have due process right to appointed counsel in probationary guardianship proceeding. 		Juveniles Aug. 10, 2011
People v. Bryant
Court must instruct jury on voluntary manslaughter where substantial evidence showed that defendant did not subjectively appreciate that her conduct endangered victim's life. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Aug. 10, 2011
County of Los Angeles v. American Contractors Indemnity Co.
No defense to bail forfeiture exists on ground that surety’s risk has been materially increased due to additional charges included in later-filed complaint. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Aug. 10, 2011
Misik v. D’Arco
Plaintiff’s failure to allege alter ego theory does not preclude motion to amend judgment where alter ego had virtual representation in underlying litigation. 		Corporations Aug. 10, 2011
U.S. v. Porta
Court decision to allow supplemental arguments does not result in impermissible coercion where court did not inquire into reasons for jury’s deadlock. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Aug. 9, 2011
U.S. v. Aguilar-Reyes
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), district court does not have jurisdiction to resentence defendant over 14 days after initial sentencing. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Aug. 9, 2011
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.