⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “Gerawan Farming Services LLC”

California Court of Appeal · 2019-09-24 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 9/24/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GERAWAN FARMING, INC., F076148, F076150 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 13CECG03374) v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS OPINION B
California Court of Appeal, 5th District · 2018-05-30 · Published · cited 13× · 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 88; 23 Cal. App. 5th 1129
LEVY, J. *1140This case involves the intersection of two of the fundamental purposes of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act ( Labor Code, 1 § 1140 et seq.; the ALRA): one is the policy to provide agricultural workers with the right to choose in questions of labor representation through a secret ballot election process (§§ 1140.2, 1152, 115
California Supreme Court · 2017-11-27 · Published · cited 47× · 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517; 405 P.3d 1087; 3 Cal. 5th 1118
Liu, J. *1129 In 1975, the Legislature enacted the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) "to encourage and protect the right of agricultural employees to full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms an
California Court of Appeal · 2018-05-30 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 5/30/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GERAWAN FARMING, INC., F073720 Petitioner, (42 ALRB No. 1) v. OPINION AGRICULTURAL LA
California Court of Appeal · 2022-02-18 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 1/14/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CRESCENT CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC, ) No. BV 033446 ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) Pasadena Trial Court ) v.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011-07-19 · Published · cited 2× · 652 F.3d 1085; 2011 WL 2803561
WARDLAW, Circuit Judge, dissenting: It has been more than seven decades since the Supreme Court ended the “mischievous” regime of Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1, 16 Pet. 1, 10 L.Ed. 865 (1842), in which federal courts sitting in diversity disregarded state court decisions and independently determined the meaning of state law. Erie Railroad, Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 74, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed.
California Court of Appeal · 2015-10-02 · Published · cited 0× · 240 Cal. App. 4th 1254
Opinion BUTZ, J. We conclude here that while the California Marketing Act of 1937 (the CMA; Food & Agr. Code, § 58601 et seq.) may have its roots in the Great Depression, it also has branches that extend to the contemporary world of agriculture. 1 </
California Supreme Court · 2013-12-19 · Published · cited 14× · 58 Cal. 4th 329; 315 P.3d 71
CORRIGAN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.—I agree with the majority that Civil Code section 2527 (hereafter section 2527, the statute, or the provision) implicates the right of free speech under article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of our state Constitution (article I), which provides: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the
District Court, C.D. California · 2015-05-26 · Published · cited 5× · 156 F. Supp. 3d 1105; 2015 WL 9695307
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS MARGARET M. MORROW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On October 8, 2014, Aliya Medcare Finance, LLC (“Aliya”) filed, this action against Robert P. Nickell, Comprehensive Toxicology Billing, LLC (“CTB”), Exec Billing Services, LLC (“Exec Billing”) (collectively “defendants”), and various fictitious defendants.1
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011-06-03 · Published · cited 16× · 648 F.3d 737; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11363; 2011 WL 2175891
648 F.3d 737 (2011) VANGUARD OUTDOOR, LLC, a California limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a California municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 10-56635. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 2, 2011. Filed June 3, 2011. Benjamin P. Pugh, (argued) and James S. Azadian, Ent
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012-06-06 · Published · cited 8× · 689 F.3d 1002; 2012 WL 2775005
ORDER Appellants’ request to modify the counsel listing in the Appendix to the Court’s June 6, 2012 Order is GRANTED. The order filed June 6, 2012 is amended by deleting the current Appendix and adding a new Appendix as follows: APPENDIX Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees Michael A. Bowse
California Supreme Court · 2026-05-14 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 5/13/26 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SHEAR DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent. S284378 Second Appellate District, Division Six B319895 San Luis Obispo County Superior Court
California Court of Appeal · 2004-11-02 · Published · cited 36× · 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 562; 123 Cal. App. 4th 1057; 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9860; 2004 Daily Journal DAR 13471; 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1846
20 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057 George BURNETT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CHIMNEY SWEEP et al., Defendants and Respondents. 2d Civil No. B167190. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six. November 2, 2004. *565 Dennis Neil Jones, Esq., Ventura; Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011-07-19 · Published · cited 1× · 661 F.3d 1199
652 F.3d 1085 (2011) JERRY BEEMAN AND PHARMACY SERVICES, INC., doing business as Beemans Pharmacy; Anthony Hutchinson and Rocida Inc., doing business as Finleys Rexall Drug; Charles Miller, doing business as Yucaipai Valley Pharmacy; Jim Morisoli and American Surgical Pharmacy Inc., doing business as American Surgical Pharmacy; Bill Pearson and Pearson and House, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general publi
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016-12-20 · Published · cited 33× · 844 F.3d 809; 27 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 240; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22627; 2016 WL 7367831
OPINION GOULD, Circuit Judge: In response to recent state appellate court decisions that exposed employers to significant and unexpected minimum wage liability, California passed Assembly Bill 1513 (AB 1513). This law created a “safe harbor” that gave employers an affirmative defense against the new claims so long as the employer made back payments under
California Supreme Court · 2007-12-24 · Published · cited 51× · 172 P.3d 742; 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288; 42 Cal. 4th 850; 2007 Cal. LEXIS 14427; 183 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2327
Opinion MORENO, J. We granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to decide whether, under California law, a shopping mall may enforce a rule prohibiting persons from *855urging customers to boycott a store in the mall. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the right to free speech granted by artic
California Court of Appeal · 2025-09-23 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 9/23/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF C100351 CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2022-
California Court of Appeal · 2016-09-07 · Published · cited 27× · 3 Cal. App. 5th 118; 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 411; 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 741
Opinion EPSTEIN, P. J.— Rafael V. Suarez challenges the grant of Trigg Laboratories, Inc.’s special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. 1 We affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
California Court of Appeal · 2023-11-15 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 11/15/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN GARY SEPANOSSIAN, B319260 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STCV13996) v. NATIONAL READY MIX COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
California Court of Appeal · 2024-04-04 · Published · cited 0×
Filed 4/4/24 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE MEGHAN SILVA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A167098 v. (Solano County MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE, Super. Ct. No. FCS048440) INC., Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Meghan Sil