(Supreme Court of California) - Automatic death penalty appeal. Judgment as to guilt affirmed. Reversed judgment as to death sentence and remand for new penalty determination. Appeals court found prejudicial error when trial court permitted prosecution to use improper inflammatory character evidence.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The trial court and the court of appeals denied class action certification to Plaintiff who sought to bring an action against retailers who allegedly misled buyers about the size of an inflatable outdoor pool. The Supreme court concluded that the trial court erred in demanding evidence about the ascertainability requirement for class certification, holding that there is not an additional evidentiary burden that the courts below imposed.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed judgment and sentence of capital punishment in death penalty case.

(Supreme Court of California) - At issue is whether police officers could enter a private residence without a warrant under a community care taking exception, as articulated in People v Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464. The Court concluded any entry that falls short of a perceived emergency or other exigent circumstances does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment and that People v. Ray is disapproved.

(Supreme Court of California) - The issue is whether or not California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act can be used to bring a claim against a business when the Plaintiff visits the business’s website with the intention of using its services only to be allegedly denied full and equal access to its services and then Plaintiff leaves without entering into an agreement with the service provider. The Court answered in the affirmative.

(Supreme Court of California) - Denied habeas corpus relief. Masters was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His judgment was affirmed in an automatic appeal. He then petitioned the court seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The court found that the petition stated a prima facie case on which relief may be granted and issued an order to show cause. A referee was appointed to take evidence and make findings. The referee’s findings supported the trial court’s verdict. The Court held that Masters had not met the standards upon which relief could be granted.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Juvenile defendant was placed on probation for felony burglary. As a condition of his parole, he was required to submit to warrantless searches of his electronic devices, even though they were not used in connection with the burglaries. The appeals court struck the electronics search condition. The Supreme Court agreed stating the search of electronic devices was overbroad.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Plaintiff successfully brought an action against Defendant for contract-based and statutory remedies for nonpayment of wages. On appeal Plaintiff sought to hold Defendant personally liable under a theory of common law conversion. The appeals court held that such a conversion claim is not the appropriate remedy.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. A mentally disordered offender’s commitment may continue after the offender’s term has expired if their condition is not in remission and they represent a substantial danger of physical harm.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed court of appeal ruling that found prejudicial error. Defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon, specifically a box cutter. The Supreme Court concluded as a matter of law that a box cutter is not inherently deadly, but that the Defendant used the box cutter in a deadly way. The Court went on to say that the trial court’s determination that the box cutter was an inherently deadly weapon was harmless error.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with completed kidnapping but was convicted of attempted kidnapping. Defendant argued that a conviction for a crime he was not charged with violates the Sixth Amendment. The court held that a criminal defendant can be convicted of an attempted crime despite being charged with a completed crime because being charged with a completed crime is sufficient notice that he could be charged with an attempted crime.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The Defendant was an employee of Plaintiff and during the course of his employment he was required to sign a document that contained an arbitration agreement. He was not afforded the opportunity to read the document before signing and the document was not explained or provided in his first language, Chinese. After his employment with Plaintiff ended, he filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. Plaintiff sought to enforce the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements are not categorically unconscionable as a waiver of the “Berman procedure” found in Labor Code 98, but an agreement to arbitrate must provide an accessible and affordable process. However, in this case the Court reversed the appeals court because the agreement had unusually high degree of procedural unconscionability and the Plaintiff was coerced and misled into accepting this agreement.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract was unenforceable because the consumer did not have reasonable notice of and manifest his assent to it. The consumer was suing a company that sells protection plans for consumer products. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a bank's breach-of-contract lawsuit against another bank should not have been dismissed on timeliness grounds. Also addressed choice‐of‐law issues. Remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer breached its contractual agreement with a distributor in the medical-supply industry. Affirmed a bench trial judgment, in a case involving distribution rights to a special type of hospital bed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a dispute involving an agreement to purchase power from a wind turbine farm was outside the scope of the parties' arbitration clause. Reversed an order compelling arbitration, in this lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the meaning of a contractual provision.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed most of a judgment against a mobile home park. The residents contended that the park breached their contracts and violated various laws, and a jury rendered a verdict in their favor. However, the California Court of Appeal held that the award of damages could not be sustained under any of the theories of liability presented to the jury.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a film producer's claim that he had an enforceable oral contract entitling him to an executive-producer credit for a film that was a sequel to a film he had developed. Held that the trial court erred in analyzing a statute-of-frauds issue. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute between two companies in the oil-drilling business, vacated a bench trial judgment, in part. The contract related to exploratory drilling for offshore oil.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute over ownership of a trademark in a restaurant name, affirmed a bench trial decision in part and reversed it in part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an employer was entitled to enforce an employment contract's forum selection clause that required any lawsuits to be brought in Indiana. Granted writ relief to prevent an employee from proceeding with a wrongful-termination lawsuit in a California court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a contractor breached its contract with a subcontractor. Affirmed a judgment after a jury trial but remanded for recalculation of damages under the Louisiana Prompt Payment Act, in this case involving an Army Corps of Engineers' project.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived claims brought by members of the band WAR alleging that their music publisher breached a contract by failing to pay them certain song royalties. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a medical device manufacturer did not violate the intellectual property rights of a company it hired to help automate its quality testing process. The issue involved reuse of computer source code. Affirmed a JMOL.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a dispute between a city and an engineering firm belonged in state court rather than federal court. Affirmed a remand order based on language in the parties' venue selection agreement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a retail customer must arbitrate a dispute with a package delivery company because the online contract he electronically signed contained an enforceable arbitration clause. Denied a writ of mandamus, in this proposed class action lawsuit challenging pricing practices.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an oil company did not breach its contract with several other oil companies. The dispute arose out of a joint agreement to cooperatively develop oil prospects in Texas. Reversed the judgment below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a restaurant offering gourmet hot dogs was entitled to prevail in its tort lawsuit against a shopping center for intentionally concealing a crucial fact, which was that another hot dog restaurant would be one of the other lessees. Affirmed in part and reversed in part after a trial.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a yacht buyer may not proceed with a contract and warranty lawsuit against a yacht manufacturer. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial, in a dispute involving the exhaust system's compliance with European Union regulatory requirements.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court dismissed a case involving an exclusive sale agreement for failure to state a claim because the contract was not in force at the time of the alleged breach and the district court did not misinterpret the contract's automatic renewal clause.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The subject of a legal judgment sought to pursue the doctrine of estoppel to compel their insurer to pay out on the judgment against them from a decade before the policy's active date. They suffered no prejudice from the insurer's action and their case was dismissed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's refusal to compel arbitration was upheld, as was their refusal of several motions by Rent-A-Center attempting to avoid class action against them because a contract to waive the right to seek public injunctive relief violates California law.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A franchise's preliminary injunction against a franchisee operating a competing company was upheld in a lawsuit over the franchisee's alleged violation of franchise agreements. The district court should have included more detail regarding the likelihood of success on the merits by the movant, but there was enough to establish that the order wasn't an abuse of discretion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the claimed agreement entered into with Defendant had not be approved by the Defendant’s governing board as required by New York Town Law, hence there was no valid and enforceable contract.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed, where the district court granted summary judgment in favor of a tenured professor who was dismissed for cause. The University’s use of an informal mediator on the hearing committee did not violate the procedural requirements of the employment contract.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed, reversed, and remanded in part. Largely affirming the dismissal of claims alleging a conspiracy between a city and alarm companies, but reversing the dismissal of a contracts clause claim against the city.

(United States DC Circuit) - Affirmed. The FCC's decision to cancel a cellular phone company's radio spectrum licenses because the company failed to make the installment payment for those licenses was appropriate.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The jury award of more than $43 mil. for the breach of a Joint Operating Agreement relating to the plugging and abandonment operation of offshore oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico was affirmed because the application of Louisiana Civil Code and interpretation of the contract was appropriate. No bad faith offset entitlement was found.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Remanded. The court joined sister circuits in holding that class arbitration is a "gateway" issue that must be decided by the courts rather than by arbitrators.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant had a right to compel arbitration, but elected to proceed with a judicial forum. However, during the litigation process, Defendant changed its mind and filed a motion to compel arbitration. The district court held that Defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the district court’s dismissal of an action based on the forum selection clause in the parties’ contract. Held that the district court abused its discretion in overriding the strong public policy in Idaho Code section 29-110(1).

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer was not liable for contractual and statutory violations arising from the denial of a commercial property insurance claim. The suit was untimely because re-investigation by the insurer did not toll the accrual of the cause of action.