Evidence, CA Supreme Court

California Supreme Court Walks Middle Ground on Warnings Causation but Reaffirms Learned Intermediary Doctrine in Himes

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on 7/19/2024

As we reported in April, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question on California’s Learned Intermediary Doctrine in Himes v. Somatics, LLC, 2022 WL 989469 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022). The...more

California Supreme Court Significantly Relaxes Employee Burden to Prevail on Section 1102.5 Claims

BakerHostetler on 2/11/2022

On Jan. 27, 2022, the Supreme Court of California issued Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001, ___ Cal. 5th ____, a decision that decisively changed the burden for employers in defending against claims...more

California Supreme Court Relaxes Standard Needed to Prove Whistleblower Retaliation

Proskauer - California Employment Law on 2/10/2022

The California Supreme Court has resolved an inconsistency that has divided the courts as to the proper evidentiary standard necessary to prove a whistleblower retaliation claim....more

California Supreme Court Set to Decide How Defense Counsel Approach Defending Company Witness Depositions

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on 12/15/2021

The California Supreme Court will soon decide an evidentiary issue that could significantly impact how company witnesses are defended at deposition. The Court heard argument December 7 in Berroteran v. Ford Motor Co., No....more

Recent California Supreme Court Case Offers Meal Period Guidance

Fisher Phillips on 4/1/2021

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that acknowledgments may be evidence used by employers to refute meal period claims, but employers cannot obtain acknowledgments using “rounded” time punches when confronting...more

Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard Continues to Apply in California Appeals

Downey Brand LLP on 8/4/2020

Last week the California Supreme Court used a conservatorship case to clarify how appellate courts should review the sufficiency of evidence when the trial court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard. In...more

Oral Is Aural, Verbal Is Not

Allen Matkins on 10/21/2019

"Oral" is derived from the Latin word, os, meaning mouth. "'Oral' means spoken in the sense that the mouth is used to articulate words or sounds." People v. Gonzalez, 2 Cal. 5th 1138, 1142 (2017). "Oral" is often confused...more

Whither Roberti? The Cockroach Precedent - An Exercise in Magical, Wishful Thinking

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on 7/30/2019

Amateur philosophers, bar flies, and eulogists, among others, are known to wistfully observe that nothing dies so long as it is remembered and discussed. That’s a comforting sentiment when it comes to loved ones and legacies,...more

California Supreme Court Broadly Defines the Type of Evidence Courts Should Consider in Ruling on Anti-SLAPP Motions

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on 3/6/2019

The California Supreme Court unanimously decided last week that in ruling on an anti-SLAPP motion, California courts should accept the opponent’s documentary evidence even if it would not be admissible at trial in the form...more

California Supreme Court Holds That Evidence of Industry Custom and Practice May Be Admissible in a Design Defect, Strict Product...

White and Williams LLP on 10/2/2018

In Kim v. Toyota Motor Corp., 6 Cal.5th 21 (Cal. 2018), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the trial court properly allowed the defendant to introduce evidence of industry custom and practice in defense of a...more

Evidence › CA Supreme Court