Cases

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II of the discussion. [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1298 This case calls on us to explore the litigiously fertile subject of the l

2 Cal.App.4th 88 (1991) 3 Cal. Rptr.2d 27 SUSAN A. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. A052537. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three. December 30, 1991. *91 COUNSEL Nathan Cohn for Plaintiffs and Appellants.<

51 Cal.4th 1052 (2011) 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 428 253 P.3d 522 ROBERT A. BROWN et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STEWART MORTENSEN, Defendant and Respondent. No. S180862. Supreme Court of California. June 16, 2011. *1056 Law Offices of Robert A. Brown, Robert A. Brown; Law Offices of

28 Cal.App.4th 1839 (1994) 34 Cal. Rptr.2d 358 MONIQUE LANTZ, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY, Respondent; COUNTY OF KERN et al., Real Parties in Interest. Docket No. F020911. Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District. October 13, 1994. *1841 COUNSEL Carol A. Sobel, Paul L. Hof

*350Opinion SWAGER, J. In this in propria persona appeal, Jeffrey H.1 appeals a judgment dismissing his complaint against the law firm, Imai, Tadlock & Keeney, two attorneys in the firm, Robert Keeney and Mark Misaghi, and a secretary in the firm, Heather Hutchison (hereafter collectively the respondent law firm), which w

101 Cal.Rptr.2d 916 (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 345 JEFFREY H., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. IMAI, TADLOCK & KEENEY et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. A087167. Court of Appeal, First District, Division One. December 8, 2000. As Modified January 3, 2001. *918 Jeffrey H., in pro. per., for

202 Cal.App.3d 431 (1988) 248 Cal. Rptr. 712 KENNETH W. KIZER, as Director, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROBERT H. SULNICK, Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. B026325. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four. June 23, 1988. *435 COUNSEL John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney Gen

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1130 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1131 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPL

*311Opinion AGLIANO, P. J. 1. Introduction Does the statutory privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. 2) preclude liability for an otherwise wrongful disclosure of trade secrets? Plaintiff ITT Telecom Products Corporation (ITT) filed the instant suit for damages alleging its former empl

*686ORDER HOLLOWS, United States Magistrate Judge. Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for January 7, 1993, was plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and further answers to interrogatories. The parties filed a timely stipulation regarding their discovery disagreement, pursuant to E.D.Cal.R. 251(c). The court has c

214 Cal.App.3d 307 (1989) 262 Cal. Rptr. 773 ITT TELECOM PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GERALD F. DOOLEY et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. H003501. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District. September 26, 1989. *310 COUNSEL Morrison & Foerster, Robert D. Rave

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1036 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1037 OPINION Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution declares that privacy is among the people'

Opinion LUCAS, C. J. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sponsors and regulates intercollegiate athletic competition throughout the United States. Under the NCAA’s drug testing program, randomly selected college student athletes competing in postseason championships and football bowl games are required to provide samples of their urine under closely

53 Cal.3d 522 (1991) 809 P.2d 290 280 Cal. Rptr. 631 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GEORGE HERBERT WHARTON, Defendant and Respondent. Docket No. S004769. Supreme Court of California. April 29, 1991. *540 COUNSEL Horace N. Freedman for Defendant and Appellant.

King, J. This case is reported to the Law Court on an agreed statement. At the January term 1910 of the Superior Court for Kennebec County, Maine, the defendant, Charles E. Sturgis, entered a plea *98of nolo contendere to an indictment pending against him for maintaining a liquor nuisance and the following sentence was imposed upon him by the court: