California Public Records Act

Last updated

California Public Records Act
Seal of California.svg
California State Legislature
  • An act to amend Sections 3020, 7017, and 19432 of the Business and Professions Code, to amend Sections 15490 and 16480.1 of the Government Code, to amend Section 11770.5 of the Insurance Code, to add Section 10207 to, and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, and to repeal Sections 1208, and 20473 of the Agricultural Code, Sections 2122, 2713.5, 2852.5, 4013, 4809.1, 5014, 6307.5, 7207.5, 7611, 8010, 8919.2, 9009.5, 9536, 9936, 10060, 18626.7, and 19035.10 of the Business and Professions Code, Article 1 (commencing with Section 1887) of Chapter 3 of Title 2 of Part 4 of, and Sections 1892, 1893, and 1894 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 113, 13867, 23607, 24.156, 26008 and 31008 of the Education Code, Sections 105, 732, 1326, and 14107 of the Fish and Game Code, Sections 1227, 8013, 83.40.8, 8440.8, 10207, 13913, 15487, 20137, and 65020.10 of the Government Code, Sections 1153.2, 1262, 1356, 1711, and 3805 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, Sections 103.2, 431.4, 1110.2, 13141.2, 17940, and 18917 of the Health and Safety Code, Sections 71.2, 137, 147, and 3092 of the Labor Code, Sections 538, 638, 666, 4567, 9065.2, and 9072 of the Public Resources Code, Section 21209 of the Public Utilities Code, Sections 2605 and 3009 of the Vehicle Code, Sections 13008 and 20034 of the Water Code, and Chapter 842 of the Statutes of 1959, relating to public records.
EnactedAugust 29, 1968
Signed by Ronald Reagan
California law
Great Seal of California.svg
Great Seal of California
Constitution
Codes
Note: There are 29 California codes.
Courts of record
Areas
Civil procedural law
Tort law
Civil rights law
Criminal law
Laws concerning political subdivisions of the state
Environmental law
Labor law
Family law
Consumer protection law and building codes
Education law
Miscellaneous
Historical laws

The California Public Records Act (Statutes of 1968, Chapter 1473; currently codified as Chapter 3.5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code) [1] was a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 requiring inspection or disclosure of governmental records to the public upon request, unless exempted by law.

Contents

The law is similar to the Freedom of Information Act, except that "the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business" is enshrined in Article 1 of the California Constitution due to California Proposition 59 (the Sunshine Amendment, 2004).

Purpose

When the legislature enacted CPRA, it expressly declared that "access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." [2] Indeed, in California "access to government records has been deemed a fundamental interest of citizenship" [3] and has emphasized that "maximum disclosure of the conduct of governmental operations [is] to be promoted by the act." [4] By promoting prompt public access to government records, the CPRA is "intended to safeguard the accountability of government to the public." [5] As the California Supreme Court recognized in CBS v. Block:

Implicit in a democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions. In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process. [6]

Public records and exemptions

In accordance with this policy, public records are broadly defined to include "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of a public's business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristic[.]" [7] Citing with approval an even broader definition of public records adopted by the California Attorney General, another court has stated:

This definition is intended to cover every conceivable kind of record that is involved in the governmental process and will pertain to any new form of record-keeping instrument as it is developed. Only purely personal information unrelated to 'the conduct of the public's business' could be considered exempt from this definition, i.e., the shopping list phoned from home, the letter to a public officer from a friend which is totally void of reference to governmental activities. [8]

Moreover, unless the public records of a local agency are exempt from the provisions of the CPRA, they must be made available for public inspection. [9] Exemptions must be narrowly construed and the public agency bears the burden of proving that an exemption applies. [10]

Most of the exemptions under the CPRA are set forth under Section 6254 and are specific as to certain records or types of records, but under Section 6255 a general exemption exists where, on the facts of the particular case, "the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record". [11] In reviewing the propriety of an agency decision to withhold records, a court is charged with ascertaining whether nondisclosure was justified under either of these statutes. [12]

Because the CPRA was modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. Section 552 et seq, courts may look to case law under FOIA in construing the CPRA. [13]

The California Supreme Court held that when a public official or employee uses a personal account and/or device to communicate about the conduct of public business, such as e-mails or text messages, the applicable writings may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. [14]

Orders and appeals

To facilitate prompt public access to public records, court orders either directing disclosure of public records or supporting an agency's decision of nondisclosure are immediately reviewable by an appellate court by way of an emergency petition seeking issuance of an extraordinary writ. [12] In 1991, the California Supreme Court made clear that under this writ procedure, trial court orders are reviewable on their merits. [15] Thus, when a trial court order under the CPRA is reviewed by an appellate court, the independent review standard is employed for legal issues and factual findings made by the trial court will be upheld if they are based on substantial evidence. [16]

Changes to Act

On November 2, 2004, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 59. [17] Commonly called the Sunshine Amendment, it added Article I, Section 3(b) to the California Constitution, which reads in part:

The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. [18]

In 2013, as part of budget negotiations, the Legislature approved a plan to make certain provisions in the Act optional for local agencies. The move was done in order to save "tens of millions of dollars" in state reimbursements to local agencies that comply with the Act, according to Legislative Analyst's Office projections. [19]

The changes were added to the 2013 budget as rider bills AB 76 [20] and SB 71, the former of which was vetoed by Jerry Brown. [20] [21] According to the bills, local agencies would no longer be required to provide the following, but are encouraged to follow them as "best practices": [22]

Open government advocates and several California newspapers came out strongly against the measure. Jim Ewert, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publisher's Association, called the move "the worst assault on the public's right to know I have seen in my 18 years of doing this." [23] Several newspapers, including the Oakland Tribune, [24] Fresno Bee, [25] and Visalia Times-Delta, [26] published editorials against the changes.

Because of the outcry from the media, state leaders backed down within the week and reversed the changes. The Assembly passed a measure to revoke that provision in the budget bill, which Jerry Brown signed into law. [27]

In September 2013 the legislature approved a constitutional amendment proposal, [28] authored by state senator Mark Leno, which would incorporate the Public Records Act into the California State Constitution. The amendment clarifies that local governments must comply with requests for publicly available documents, and requires local governments to pay the costs of those requests in full. The proposed amendment went to the voters for approval in June 2014, [29] and was passed with 61.8% of the vote. [30]

In 2018, the legislature enacted SB 1421, [31] which went into effect on January 1, 2019. The law provides that public records are not confidential if they pertain to an incident in which police discharged a firearm at a person, an incident in which police use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury, an incident in which police committed sexual assault against a member of the public, or sustained findings of police dishonesty. SB 1421 also sets relatively short timelines for withholding such records during a criminal investigation or criminal enforcement proceeding.

In 2021, Assemblymember Chau proposed a bill, AB 473 (Chau), [32] to carry out the recommended recodification. Alongside, he presented a companion bill, AB 474 (Chau), to bring about the associated revisions. Both these bills were successfully passed, as seen in 2021 Cal. Stat. chs. 614, 615. However, a few of the associated revisions were invalidated by substantive bills that impacted the same code sections. These cancelled revisions have been reintroduced in the Legislature, evident in SB 1380 (Committee on Judiciary).

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "Chapter 3.5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the California Government Code: Inspection of Public Records". California Office of Legislative Counsel . Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  2. ↑ "California Government Code § 6250". California Office of Legislative Counsel . Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  3. ↑ CBS v. Block, 42 Cal. 3d 646, 652 n.5, 230 Cal. Rptr. 362, 725 P. 2d 370 (1986).
  4. ↑ Id. at 651-52 (emphasis added).
  5. ↑ Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers Inc. v. County of Orange, 158 Cal. App. 3d 893, 901, 205 Cal. Rptr. 92 (1984).
  6. ↑ Id. at 651.
  7. ↑ "California Government Code § 6252(e)". California Office of Legislative Counsel . Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  8. ↑ San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 3d 762, 774; 192 Cal. Rptr. 415, 422 (1983)(internal citations omitted); see also Versaci v. Superior Court, 127 Cal. App. 4th 805, 813, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92 (2005)(quoting Coronado Police Officers Ass'n v. Carroll, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1001, 1006, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 553 (2003)(citing with approval same definition)).
  9. ↑ Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 337, 346, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 882, 852 P. 2d 377 (1993).
  10. ↑ Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1045, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517 (2004); CSU Fresno Association v. Superior Court, 90 Cal.App. 4th 810, 831, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 870 (2001); see also Lorig v. Medical Bd., 78 Cal. App. 4th 462, 467, 92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 862 (2000); County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 82 Cal. App. 4th 819, 825, 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 564 (2000).
  11. ↑ "California Government Code § 6255". California Office of Legislative Counsel . Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  12. 1 2 "California Government Code § 6259". California Office of Legislative Counsel . Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  13. ↑ See Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court , 53 Cal. 3d 1325, 1338, 283 Cal. Rptr. 893, 813 P.2d 240 (1991); ACLU v. Deukmejian, 32 Cal. 3d 440, 447, 186 Cal. Rptr. 235, 651 P.2d 822 (1982); but see Williams, 5 Cal. 4th at 348-54 (holding that CPRA's exemption for law enforcement investigatory records did not incorporate FOIA criteria and thus courts cannot look to FOIA cases to interpret Section 6254(f) of the CPRA, but must look to the statutory language of the CPRA provision to construe the statute).
  14. ↑ City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 5th 608 (March 2017).
  15. ↑ Times Mirror Co., 53 Cal. 3d at 1336; see also State Bd. of Equalization v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1177, 1185, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 342 (1992) (echoing the decision in Times Mirror and stating that the scope of review by a writ of review is equivalent with the scope of review on appeal).
  16. ↑ Times Mirror Co., 53 Cal. 3d at 1336 (citing Block, 42 Cal. 3d at 650-51).
  17. ↑ For a detailed discussion, see the foreword to the California section of the Open Government Guide Archived 2011-06-11 at the Wayback Machine .
  18. ↑ "California Const. Art. I, § 3(b)(1)". California Office of Legislative Counsel . Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  19. ↑ "Budget bill would make it optional for California local governments to comply with public records laws". Sacramento Bee . June 19, 2013. Archived from the original on June 19, 2013. Retrieved June 19, 2013.
  20. 1 2 "An act to amend Sections 100010 and 100115 of, and to add Section 94874.8 to, the Education Code, to amend Sections 8592.1, 8592.5, 8592.7, 8690.6, 11542, 13964, 14615.1, 15251, 15253, 15254, 15275, 15277, 18671.2, 23025, 25008, 53108.5, 53114.1, 53115.1, and 53126.5 of, to add Sections 6252.8, 8250.1, 11543, 13295.5, 13963.1, and 50021 to, to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 14930) to Part 5.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15278) to Part 6.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, and to add and repeal Article 8 (commencing with Section 19210) of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of Division 5 of Title 2 of, to repeal Section 8169.6 of, and to repeal and add Section 18662 of, the Government Code, to amend Sections 6060 and 7047 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, to amend Sections 2851, 4733, 6489, and 32103 of the Health and Safety Code, to amend Section 10089.7 of the Insurance Code, to amend Sections 62.5, 139.48, 1024, 1771.3, 1771.5, 7852, 7856, and 7870 of, to amend and repeal Section 62.7 of, to add Sections 62.8 and 1063.5 to, and to repeal 62.9 of, the Labor Code, to amend Section 1197 of the Military and Veterans Code, to amend Sections 1203, 13518.1, 13701, 13710, and 13730 of the Penal Code, to amend Sections 10351, 12100, 12100.5, 12100.7, 12101, 12101.2, 12101.5, 12102, 12103, 12103.5, 12104, 12104.5, 12105, 12106, 12108, 12109, 12112, 12120, 12125, 12126, and 12128 of, to add Sections 12102.1 and 12102.2 to, and to repeal Section 12121 of, the Public Contract Code, to amend Sections 9303 and 75121 of the Public Resources Code, to amend Sections 2872.5, 2892, 2892.1 11908.1, 11908.2, and 22407 of the Public Utilities Code, to amend Sections 41030, 41031, 41032, 41136, 41136.1, 41137, 41137.1, 41138, 41139, 41140, 41141, and 41142 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to amend Section 5066 of the Vehicle Code, to amend Sections 21166, 30507, 30507.1, 34741, 40355, 50605, 56031, 60143, 70078, 71255, and 74208 of the Water Code, and to amend Section 656.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to state and local government, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget". California Office of Legislative Counsel . Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  21. ↑ "An act to amend Sections 100010 and 100115 of, and to add Section 94874.8 to, the Education Code, to amend Sections 8592.1, 8592.5, 8592.7, 8690.6, 11542, 13964, 14615.1, 15251, 15253, 15254, 15275, 15277, 18671.2, 23025, 53108.5, 53114.1, 53115.1, and 53126.5 of, to add Sections 8250.1, 11543, 13295.5, and 13963.1 to, to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 14930) to Part 5.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15278) to Part 6.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of, and to add and repeal Article 8 (commencing with Section 19210) of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of Division 5 of Title 2 of, to repeal Section 8169.6 of, and to repeal and add Section 18662 of, the Government Code, to amend Section 10089.7 of the Insurance Code, to amend Sections 62.5, 139.48, 1024, 1771.3, 1771.5, 7852, 7856, and 7870 of, to amend and repeal Section 62.7 of, to add Sections 62.8 and 1063.5 to, and to repeal Section 62.9 of, the Labor Code, to amend Sections 1203, 13518.1, 13701, 13710, and 13730 of the Penal Code, to amend Sections 10351, 12100, 12100.5, 12100.7, 12101, 12101.2, 12101.5, 12102, 12103, 12103.5, 12104, 12104.5, 12105, 12106, 12108, 12109, 12112, 12120, 12125, 12126, and 12128 of, to add Sections 12102.1 and 12102.2 to, and to repeal Section 12121 of, the Public Contract Code, to amend Section 75121 of the Public Resources Code, to amend Sections 2872.5, 2892, and 2892.1 of the Public Utilities Code, to amend Sections 41030, 41031, 41032, 41136, 41136.1, 41137, 41137.1, 41138, 41139, 41140, 41141, and 41142 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to amend Section 5066 of the Vehicle Code, and to amend Section 656.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to state and local government, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget". California Office of Legislative Counsel . Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  22. ↑ "Budget could limit public's access to government documents". Los Angeles Times . June 18, 2013. Retrieved June 19, 2013.
  23. ↑ "California Legislature Guts State Records Law". Courthouse News Service . June 18, 2013. Retrieved June 18, 2013.
  24. ↑ "Oakland Tribune editorial: State lawmakers must restore California Public Records Act". Courthouse News Service . June 18, 2013. Retrieved June 19, 2013.
  25. ↑ "EDITORIAL: Tell Jerry Brown to veto attack on Public Records Act". Fresno Bee . June 18, 2013. Archived from the original on November 14, 2013. Retrieved June 19, 2013.
  26. ↑ "Editorial: RIP, California Public Records Act". Visalia Times-Delta . June 19, 2013. Retrieved June 19, 2013.
  27. ↑ Orr, Katie (June 20, 2013). "California Assembly Repeals Changes To Public Records Act". KPBS Radio News. Retrieved June 24, 2013.
  28. ↑ SCA 3 from the California Legislature website
  29. ↑ White, Jeremy B. (September 10, 2013). "California Public Records Act amendment going to June ballot". Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on September 11, 2013. Retrieved September 13, 2013.
  30. ↑ Bowen, Debra. "Statement of Vote, June 3, 2014 Statewide Direct Primary Election" (PDF). California Secretary of State. pp. 108–109. Retrieved February 11, 2015.
  31. ↑ "Bill Text - SB-1421 Peace officers: release of records". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  32. ↑ "California Public Records Act Clean-Up - Study G-400". www.clrc.ca.gov. Retrieved June 19, 2023.
  33. ↑ "California", State Copyright Resource Center, Harvard University, retrieved March 27, 2020, Laws and legal sources that affect the copyright status of government documents

Related Research Articles

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. Like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally instituting and pursuing a legal action that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of California</span> Highest judicial court in the U.S. state of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts. Since 1850, the court has issued many influential decisions in a variety of areas including torts, property, civil and constitutional rights, and criminal law.

Student rights are those rights, such as civil, constitutional, contractual and consumer rights, which regulate student rights and freedoms and allow students to make use of their educational investment. These include such things as the right to free speech and association, to due process, equality, autonomy, safety and privacy, and accountability in contracts and advertising, which regulate the treatment of students by teachers and administrators. There is very little scholarship about student rights throughout the world. In general most countries have some kind of student rights enshrined in their laws and proceduralized by their court precedents. Some countries, like Romania, in the European Union, have comprehensive student bills of rights, which outline both rights and how they are to be proceduralized. Most countries, however, like the United States and Canada, do not have a cohesive bill of rights and students must use the courts to determine how rights precedents in one area apply in their own jurisdictions.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.

Randall v. Orange County Council, 17 Cal.4th 736, 952 P.2d 261, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 (1998), was a case before the Supreme Court of California that established that groups such as the Boy Scouts of America are not considered "business establishments" as used in the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act and could not be subject to its provisions. Its companion case was Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America, 17 Cal.4th 670, 952 P.2d 218, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 410 (1998).

<i>Armstrong</i> cases Lawsuits to suppress disclosing Hubbard documents

Armstrong I–VIII were a lengthy series of lawsuits and other legal actions, primarily in the California state courts, arising from Gerald Armstrong's departure from the Church of Scientology (COS). The COS argued that Armstrong, a former COS employee, improperly took private papers belonging to the Church, while Armstrong argued that he took the papers to protect himself from improper disciplinary proceedings and that the Church did, in fact, discipline him improperly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California superior courts</span> State trial courts with general jurisdiction

Superior courts in California are the state trial courts with general jurisdiction to hear and decide any civil or criminal action which is not specially designated to be heard in some other court or before a governmental agency. As mandated by the California Constitution, there is a superior court in each of the 58 counties in California. The superior courts also have appellate divisions which hear appeals from decisions in cases previously heard by inferior courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of California</span> Overview of the law of the U.S. state of California

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal enclave</span> Parcel of land which is within a state but under federal jurisdiction

In United States law, a federal enclave is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States". While these enclaves, which are used for all the many Federal governmental purposes, such as post offices, arsenals, dams; road; etc., usually are owned by the Government, the United States in many cases has received similar jurisdictional authority over privately owned properties which it leases, or privately owned and occupied properties which are located within the exterior boundaries of a large area as to which a State has ceded jurisdiction to the United States.

The California Art Preservation Act (CAPA) is a 1979 California law that provides legal protection for artists' moral rights by prohibiting the alteration or destruction of their artwork without their consent. The law has since been amended in part. The law is codified at California Civil Code § 987. The California Art Preservation Act was the first major law to specifically address artists' rights in the United States.

<i>People v. Pointer</i>

People v. Pointer, 151 Cal.App.3d 1128, 199 Cal. Rptr. 357 (1984), is a criminal law case from the California Court of Appeal, First District, is significant because the trial judge included in his sentencing a prohibition on the defendant becoming pregnant during her period of probation. The appellate court held that such a prohibition was outside the bounds of a judge's sentencing authority. The case was remanded for resentencing to undo the overly broad prohibition against conception.

People v. Berry is a voluntary manslaughter case that is widely taught in American law schools for the appellate court's unusual interpretation of heat of passion doctrine. Although the defendant had time to "cool down" between his wife's verbal admission of infidelity and the killing, the California Supreme Court held that the provocation in this case was adequate to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. The lower court had relied on the traditional definition of "adequate provocation" in its jury instructions. The California Supreme Court reversed Berry's murder conviction, while affirming Berry's conviction for assault using deadly force.

County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (2009), was a case before the California Courts of Appeal dealing with the ability of a local California agency to limit the disclosure of, or require license agreements for, public records and data requested under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

<i>DVD Copy Control Assn, Inc. v. Bunner</i>

DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner was a lawsuit that was filed by the DVD Copy Control Association in California, accusing Andrew Bunner and several others of misappropriation of trade secrets under California's implementation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The case went through several rounds of appeals and was last heard and decided in February 2004 by the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District.

I. Nelson Rose is an internationally known author and public speaker, and is recognized as one of the world's leading experts on gambling and gaming law. He is currently a Professor Emeritus at Whittier College and a Visiting Professor at the University of Macau. Rose is best known for his internationally syndicated column and 1986 book, Gambling and the Law. To further educate and inform on the subject, he also maintains a comprehensive website, "Gambling and the Law," which can be found at www.gamblingandthelaw.com.

In addition to federal laws, each state has its own unfair competition law to prohibit false and misleading advertising. In California, one such statute is the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. The UCL "borrows heavily from section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act" but has developed its own body of case law.

The California Racial Justice Act of 2020 bars the state from seeking or securing a criminal conviction or imposing a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. The Act, in part, allows a person to challenge their criminal case if there are statistical disparities in how people of different races are either charged, convicted or sentenced of crimes. The Act counters the effect of the widely criticized 1987 Supreme Court decision in McClesky v. Kemp, which rejected the use of statistical disparities in the application of the death penalty to prove the kind of intentional discrimination required for a constitutional violation. The Act, however, goes beyond countering McClesky to also allow a defendant to challenge their charge, conviction or sentence if a judge, attorney, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of their race, ethnicity, or national origin or if one of those same actors used racially discriminatory language during the trial. The CRJA only applies prospectively to cases sentenced after January 1, 2021. The Act is codified in Sections 745, 1473 and 1473.7 of the California Penal Code.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.