6 results for 'judge:"Evans"'.
J. Guerrero denies a petition for review. The trial court imposition of a parole revocation restitution fine was improper since defendant's life sentence for murder did not include the possibility of parole. Also, counsel did not display racial animus by telling him to use street slang, which was valid advice intended to preserve his credibility on the stand. Reversed in part.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: A165198, Categories: Murder, Parole, Restitution
J. Evans, in answer to a question from the U.S. Ninth Circuit, holds that non-convicted incarcerated people preparing food for a for-profit company contracted to supply meals in a county jail are not entitled to minimum or overtime wages. The applicable penal code section does not differentiate between pretrial or convicted detainees in setting the maximum daily wage at $2.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: S277120, Categories: Employment, Prisoners' Rights
J. Evans holds that the appeals court erred in reducing the restitution damages a vehicle buyer was awarded by the amount the buyer recovered by trading in the defective vehicle. The restitution amount may not be offset by a trade-in credit or sales proceeds where a manufacture's failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act forces a buyer to trade in or sell a defective vehicle. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: S266034, Categories: Vehicle, Damages, Warranty
[Modified.] J. Evans changes a footnote with no change in judgment. The appeals court erred when it determined that protected class members had not satisfied the dilution element of its California Voting Rights Act claim. The appeals court must apply the correct legal standard when it revisits whether Hispanic voters showed that their ability to influence election outcomes is diluted by at-large elections. Unlike its federal counterpart, the Act does not require a protected class to show it is geographically concentrated enough to form a hypothetical single-member district. Another distinction is that an Act claim does not require a showing that at-large voting impairs a protected class's ability to elect candidates, only that the at-large method impairs its ability to influence election outcomes. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: S263972, Categories: Elections
J. Evans finds that the appeals court erred when it determined that protected class members had not satisfied the dilution element of its California Voting Rights Act claim. The appeals court must apply the correct legal standard when it revisits whether Hispanic voters showed that their ability to influence election outcomes is diluted by at-large elections. Unlike its federal counterpart, the Act does not require a protected class to show it is geographically concentrated enough to form a hypothetical single-member district. Another distinction is that an Act claim does not require a showing that at-large voting impairs a protected class's ability to elect candidates, only that the at-large method impairs its ability to influence election outcomes. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: S263972, Categories: Elections
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Evans holds that triable issues of fact should have stopped the trial court from granting an insurer summary judgment on unfair competition allegations brought by the California Medical Association. The Unfair Competition Law limits a membership organization's standing to suits for injuries it suffers, but does not confer standing for injuries suffered by its members. But a membership organization attains standing when it makes expenditures, other than litigation expenses, to respond to unfair competition that threatens its mission. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: S269212, Categories: Civil Procedure, Health Care, Insurance