California Court News News - California Case Law
California Case Law - The FindLaw California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Court News Category

It's a tough time for high fructose corn syrup. Once found in pretty much everything sweet, King Corn has fallen from his pedestal a bit since corn syrup was connected to everything from obesity to heart disease to honeybee die offs. It's gotten so bad that HFCS now wants to be known as "corn sugar." After all, sugar is sugar right?

Not according to the actual sugar industry. They've taken "Big Corn" to court, suing corn syrup giants for $2 billion in false advertising based on their claims that corn syrup was just as good as cane sugar.

Right-To-Die Lawsuit Rejected by California Appeals Court

The Associated Press reported yesterday that a California appeals court rejected a lawsuit brought by Christy O'Donnell and two other terminally ill patients who sought to legalize the procedure for doctors to prescribe them fatal medication.

The court ruled that current law would criminalize physicians who helped patients commit suicide. The news comes as a blow to the patients in light of this month's signing of the California's physician-assisted suicide law. This is ironic because O'Donnell's face has become synonymous with California's freshly legalized right to drug-assisted suicide.

Blue Moon Is 'Craft Beer' ... Even If the Label Is Just Marketing Puffery

Another trademark violation case has been decided, but this time, it appears to have been in the favor those who make craft beer ... whatever that means.

What does the term "craft beer" mean to you? Does it evoke images of crusty, bearded men over rusty antique vats and hand-stirred mash? If it does, and you go out to buy a case of Blue Moon, the joke's on you.

Nevada to Pay San Francisco $400k to Settle 'Patient Dumping' Suit

The State of Nevada has agreed to settle with San Francisco in the amount of $400,000 in a lawsuit over allegations that the Silver state wrongfully bused over psychiatric patients to San Francisco without the funds to pay for their care.

The deal still must be approved by the Nevada Board of Governors and by a similar board sitting in San Francisco. If approved, it will be a welcome close to San Francisco's grievances against Nevada. The issue began in 3013 when it was discovered that as many as 1,000 mentally handicapped or indigent patients had been shipped out of the state to fend for themselves.

California voters may be able to express their opposition to Citizens United when they go to the ballot box. The California Supreme Court seems poised to allow a public referendum, proposed by the state legislature, on whether the Constitution should be amended to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which removed limits on corporate and union political contributions.

Of course, the ballot measure, if allowed, would have no actual impact on the Court's decision or the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the real issue before the California Supreme Court is whether and to what extent, the legislature can place advisory measures on the ballot.

The Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent an anti-abortion group from releasing more videos of employees in a California company which provides fetal tissue to researchers. Those videos, made of hidden camera footage, purport to show Planned Parenthood and StemExpress employees discussing the sale of aborted fetal tissue for research, or, as the videos' creators term it, an "illegal baby parts trade."

The videos, released by the Center for Medical Progress, have been widely condemned as deceptive and misleading. Following the California court's order, no more videos of StemExpress employees will be released, though the Center for Medical Progress says it will continue to release other videos not affected by the order.

Alameda County's drug disposal law, which required pharmaceutical companies to pay for the disposal of unused medicine, has survived an attempted Supreme Court challenge. The High Court refused to hear a challenge to the Ninth Circuit's decision upholding the county law, which applies to much of Northern California's East Bay area.

The law was modeled on similar laws regulating the disposal of batteries, electronics and other potentially harmful trash. Under Alameda's law, drug companies must pay to collect expired prescriptions and cannot charge customers for the disposal. A one day drug take-back event in Alameda resulted in the collection of almost 800 pounds of pills, according to the Star Tribune.

Districts Must Adhere to State Formula for Charter Schools

Charter schools are a burgeoning business. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, public charter schools comprised 5.8% of all public schools in 2011-12, and 2.1 million students were enrolled in them.

In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 39, which requires public schools to share some proportion of their facilities to charter schools so that charter students have access to a "reasonably equivalent" education. How the share is calculated is the subject of a California Supreme Court opinion from earlier this month, finding that the Los Angeles Unified School District's formula didn't make the cut.

Calif. Lawmakers Question Judiciary's $30M in Wasteful Spending

The Judicial Council of California earned some harsh criticism earlier this week from state legislators during a hearing at the State Capitol in Sacramento.

The Chief Justice of California, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, has said over the past several years that the state court system needs more money; indeed, state courthouses have been closed, and employees laid off, to save money. In spite of that, though, an independent audit of the judiciary's finances showed $30 million in questionable spending.

The California Supreme Court has unanimously sided with a group of investigative journalists over the Department of Public Health (DPH) in a dispute over public access to regulatory records.

In an investigation into abuse at state-owned and -operated treatment facilities for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, the Center for Investigative Reporting (the Center) requested from DPH copies of all citations issued to the seven largest state faculties. DPH responded to the request with 55 aggressively redacted citations, giving scant information about the actual violations.

DPH claimed that the redactions of private medical information were justified under the Lanterman Act. The Center, demanding more information under the Long Term Care Act, sued DPH for the unredacted citations.