California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated (Podcast)
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts Update, Breaking News from California
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts in Michigan and California Pose Challenges for Background Checks
It is Christmas in July for eminent domain practitioners! We have a California Supreme Court opinion on a condemnation case, which is rare. The case, Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020 Cal. LEXIS...more
In City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with...more
On August 15, 2019, the California Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) issued its first inverse condemnation opinion in more than 22 years in the case City of Oroville v. Superior Court of Butte County, Case No. S243247...more
On June 5, 2019, the California Supreme Court (“Court”) heard oral argument in the case City of Oroville v. Superior Court of Butte County, Case No. S243247 (“Oroville Case”). This case is notable because it is the first time...more
The City of Oroville (“City”) has petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of an unpublished Court of Appeal decision, City of Oroville v. Superior Court (2017) 2017 WL 2554447 (Third District), finding the City...more
We don’t often see multiple takings-related cases in one week, but last week we saw three. The California Supreme Court’s decision in Property Reserve was obviously the most important, but the Fourth Appellate District Court...more
The Fifth District Court of Appeal has confirmed that the 90-day statute of limitations under the Subdivision Map Act includes takings claims arising out of Map Act decisions. Honchariw_v._County_of_Stanislaus, No. F069145...more
The Court of Appeal has recently reminded land use practitioners of an important deadline when pursuing a takings claim: A takings challenge based on a land use determination must be filed within 90 days of that determination...more