California Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: Civil Procedure/Evidence/Discovery
[UPDATED THROUGH MAY 3, 2012]
When Are Local Ordinances Banning or Regulating Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Preempted by Federal or State Law? The Supreme Court has accepted review in four cases to address this issue:
City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health & Wellness Center, Inc., S198638 (opinion below E052400, formerly 200 Cal.App.4th 885), review granted 1/18/12.
People v. G3 Holistic, Inc., S198395 (opinion below E051663, nonpublished), review granted 1/18/12.
Pack v. Superior Court, S197169 (opinion below B228781, formerly 199 Cal.App.4th 1070), review granted 1/18/12.
Traudt v. City of Dana Point, S197700 (opinion below G044130, formerly 199 Cal.App.4th 886), review granted 1/18/12.
What Constitutes Substantial Compliance with the Requirement to Present a Malpractice Claim Against the County? Did plaintiff substantially comply with the statutory requirement that her claim against the county for medical negligence be presented “to the clerk, secretary or auditor thereof” or mailed to “the governing body” (Gov. Code, § 915, subd. (a)) by delivering the claim to the risk management department of the county hospital where the injury allegedly occurred? DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa Clara, S194501 (opinion below H034160, formerly 195 Cal.App.4th 1327), review granted 8/10/11.
Was Expert Witness Addressing Lost Profits Regarding an Unmarketed Product Properly Excluded as Speculative? Did the trial court err in excluding proffered expert opinion testimony regarding lost profits? Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, S191550 (Opinion below, B202789, nonpublished), review granted April 27, 2011.
Is a Contemporaneous Factual Misrepresentation of Contract Terms Admissible Under the Parol Evidence Rule? Does the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule permit evidence of a contemporaneous factual misrepresentation as to the terms contained in a written agreement at the time of execution, or is such evidence inadmissible under Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association v. Pendergrass (1935) 4 Cal.2d 258, 263, as “a promise directly at variance with the promise of the writing”? Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn., S190581 (opinion below F058434, formerly 191 Cal.App.4th 611), review granted 4/20/11.
Which Law Controls Whether a Dissolved Corporation Lacks the Capacity To Be Sued? Does Cal. Corp. Code § 2010 or Del. Gen. Corp. Law § 278 control whether a California plaintiff alleging personal injuries from asbestos can pursue a claim against a dissolved Delaware corporation when the complaint was filed more than three years after the dissolution of the corporation? Greb v. Diamond International, S183365, (prior opinion A125472, formerly 184 Cal.App.4th 15), review granted 8/18/10. The petition for review is here.
When Are Witness Statements Protected as Work Product? Is the statement of a witness that is taken in writing or otherwise recorded verbatim by an attorney or the attorney’s representative entitled to the protection of the California work product privilege? Coito v. Superior Court, S181712 (opinion below F057690, formerly 182 Cal.App.4th 758), review granted 6/9/10. Update 5/3/12: Oral argument scheduled for 5/31/12.
Terrific and useful site. Thanks