(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on a felony-murder theory. Defendant challenged his convictions in part based on Senate Bill 1437 that amended the felony-murder rule. The appeals court concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief, but that relief could be available to other defendants by petitioning their trial courts.

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming a district court decision holding that a putative class action suit that organic labeled baby formula included ingredients not permitted under the Organic Foods Production Act because their state law claims were preempted by the Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - The People appealed the order dismissing the complaint for a medical marijuana conviction. The Court reversed the dismissal. Defendant argued that the appeal was moot as a result of the passage of the California Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument because the Court concluded, the Act was not intended to be retroactive for this conviction. A reversal was required because the trial court abused its discretion in mistakenly dismissing the complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - In this sentencing reduction for marijuana possession under Health and Safety Code section 11359 case, the 4th Appellate District court reversed the superior court’s order denying defendant’s request to reduce his felony marijuana conviction because of his conviction of four counts of attempted murder. The appellate court held that the conviction for attempted murder in the same case for the marijuana conviction did not render the defendant ineligible for resentencing under the Health and Safety Code.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a conviction for the sale of marijuana in a case where the defendant operated a business selling medical marijuana products in Livermore, which has a municipal ordinance prohibiting marijuana dispensaries. The defendant contended that the trial court erred by denying him the ability to assert a medical-marijuana defense. The appeals court agreed and overturned his conviction, holding that the trial judge's ruling that barred him from raising a medical-marijuana defense violated his constitutional right to present a defense.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.

De coronacrisis luidt een nieuwe werkelijkheid in met een grote economische recessie en een anderhalvemeter-samenleving. Dat vraagt van bedrijven en instellingen een kritische blik op hun visie, ambitie en strategie. Business as usual bestaat immers niet meer. Hoe ziet die nieuwe werkelijkheid eruit? Wat betekent dat op korte en lange termijn voor jouw organisatie? Wat […]

Met de huidige omstandigheden verandert de manier waarop we communiceren met klanten. Video gaat steeds meer een rol spelen. Google speelt hier goed op in en komt met de YouTube Video Builder. Hierdoor wordt het voor ieder midden- en kleinbedrijf mogelijk om zonder kennis van videobewerking of dure videoproductie aan de slag te gaan. Scheelt […]

Sectoren die nu nog offline only acteren komen meer en meer onder druk te staan. Na het verdwijnen van hele winkelketens en het op de schop nemen van volledige branches is de digitale revolutie op weg om ook de wereld van zakelijke events en B2B-beurzen te ‘disrupten’. Het stevige podium dat de beursvloer biedt is […]

Van gemeenten wordt anno 2020 verwacht dat zij inwoners betrekken bij participatietrajecten, zijzelf dienen vooral een faciliterende rol op zich te nemen. Maar hoe maak je als gemeente hierin de juiste keuzes: organiseer je een fysieke bewonersbijeenkomst of kies je voor een online raadpleging? Uit het onlangs gepubliceerde onderzoek ‘Staat van Betrokkenheid 2020’ van onderzoeks- […]

The Republican National Committee (RNC) launched a digital platform on Friday called "Protect the Vote" as a response to the left's increasing attempts to use the coronavirus pandemic to push their election agenda items, such as universal mail-in voting.

A Chechen migrant was arrested in the commune of Montereau-Fault-Yonne after dragging a police officer 60 feet with his vehicle while trying to escape a Wuhan coronavirus lockdown checkpoint.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversed and remanded in a case involving the enforcement of arbitration clauses in online contracts. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant alleging violations of Massachusetts consumer-protection statute. Defendant operates a ride-sharing service requiring customers to register using the Uber App. In the app is a page that has a button that will take you to Terms and Conditions, which a user is not required to accept and which contains an agreement to arbitrate any dispute. The district court granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint. In reversing and remanding the First Circuit held that the terms of the agreement were not reasonably communicated to plaintiffs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a blogger who moved to quash a subpoena was entitled to an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party, in a case where a crowdfunding campaign originator alleged that he was defamed online. Remanded for recalculation of the fee award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that Apple Inc. was not liable for a five-year-old girl's death and injuries to her family members that occurred when a driver using the FaceTime application on his iPhone crashed into her parents' car on a Texas highway. Affirmed dismissal of the complaint, concluding that Apple did not owe a duty of care and that the iPhone's design was not a proximate cause.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Remanded for further findings as to whether a citizen group and six individuals had legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Chicago's recently enacted Shared Housing Ordinance, which regulates home-sharing activities, including services offered by companies like Airbnb.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo were not liable for allegedly conspiring to flood the market of online search results with information about so-called scam locksmiths, in order to extract additional advertising revenue. The Communications Decency Act barred this lawsuit brought by more than a dozen locksmith companies. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order granting probation with amendments. Defendant admitted to acquiring personal identifying information with intent to defraud. The trial court placed Defendant on probation with various terms and conditions. Defendant appealed the conditions. Appeals court affirmed, but struck certain fees.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment, but remanded for sentencing on certain counts. Defendant convicted of 60 sex offenses, including human trafficking, contacting a minor with intent to commit a sexual offense, and sending harmful matter to a minor. Defendant argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support convictions. Appeals court held that six of Defendant’s convictions must be reduced to sending harmful material to a minor.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed for human trafficking of a minor but affirmed in all other respects. Defendant was convicted of pimping a minor and human trafficking. Defendant argued that the human trafficking count should be reversed because the alleged minor was actually an undercover police officer. The appeals court agreed and remanded for re-sentencing.

The French Composer Of EDM Known Internationally As DP Has Released His Latest LP Record, “House Vol. 1”

The Video Was Released On April 25th

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Minor league baseball players seeking class status in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act appeal the denial of class certification in Arizona and Florida. The panel held certification is appropriate and consistent with “the great public policy” embodied by the FLSA.

Southwest Hard Rock & Metal Group Releases New Single In Anticipation Of Upcoming Album.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed a man's death sentence for robbing and murdering an elderly couple, on an automatic appeal.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed that the double-jeopardy rule barred the defendant from being retried for first-degree murder. The prosecution insisted that he could be retried because the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012) has abrogated Stone v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 3d 503 (1982), with regard to double-jeopardy principles involving partial verdicts. However, the California Supreme Court disagreed.

(Supreme Court of California) - Addressed the retroactivity of Proposition 47. Held that a defendant who had not yet been sentenced as of the 2014 measure's effective date was entitled to initial sentencing under its amended penalty provisions, without regard to the resentencing procedures applicable to those who were already serving their sentences.

(Supreme Court of California) - On an automatic appeal, affirmed a man's capital murder conviction for killing a woman and her daughter.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed a death judgment imposed on a man who robbed a convenience store and fatally shot the clerk.

(Supreme Court of California) - Modified a sentence imposed in a capital murder case, on an automatic appeal.

(Supreme Court of California) - On an automatic appeal, affirmed a death judgment imposed for the first-degree murders of two people.

(Supreme Court of California) - On an automatic appeal, affirmed a death judgment imposed on a man who murdered a peace officer.

(Supreme Court of California) - Addressed the effect of Proposition 47 on a conviction for street terrorism. Held that once the defendant's conviction for grand theft (stealing a bicycle) was reduced to a misdemeanor under the new law, his conviction for the gang crime of street terrorism must be dismissed, because there was no longer a felony predicate for it.

(Supreme Court of California) - On an automatic appeal, affirmed a death sentence imposed on a woman for killing three of her children.

(Supreme Court of California) - Automatic death penalty appeal. Defendant convicted of multiple murders and special enhancements applied. Appeals court affirmed judgment in all respects.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed as to attempted murder conviction. Defendant was tried and convicted of first degree murder and two attempted murders. The trial court instructed the jury on the attempted murder using the kill zone theory, which allows for the conviction of attempted murder of an individual who was not the primary target. California Supreme Court held that the jury was not properly instructed and reversed the attempted murder conviction.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Automatic death penalty appeal. Defendant convicted of first degree murder with the special circumstances for rape. Jury returned a verdict of death and the court imposed that sentence.

(Supreme Court of California) - Automatic appeal of death penalty conviction and sentence. Affirmed conviction and sentence.

(Supreme Court of California) - Vacate order and remand. The trial court denied Plaintiff access to ballistics evidence used at his trial to file a habeas corpus petition. The trial court believed that Penal Code section 1054.9 prohibited such a release of evidence. The Supreme court disagreed stating that section 1054.9 referred to physical evidence held by the prosecutor, not evidence held by the court.

(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) - 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) - 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) - 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) - 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.